today one of our developers lost quite a bit of time due to a merge gone wrong (the vault merge tool made some incorrect assumptions, which were not caught in the merge phase, and thus were saved incorrect).
this could be alleviated if the vault merge tool could save a backup of the pre-merge working copy to _sgbak like vault itself does with other files.
thoughts?
merge tool suggestion / feature request
Moderator: SourceGear
Right now only when the file is overwritten is it saved in the _sgbak. I'll put in a feature request for you.
In the meantime, one way to tell what's happened with that file would be to use the diff function against the previous version that the other user had uploaded. You could also use the web client to see who put in what part into that file. The web client is at http://<vault server>/VaultService/VaultWeb/login.aspx.
In the meantime, one way to tell what's happened with that file would be to use the diff function against the previous version that the other user had uploaded. You could also use the web client to see who put in what part into that file. The web client is at http://<vault server>/VaultService/VaultWeb/login.aspx.
unfortunately there is no way to tell what's happened with the file because the changes were lost. It works something like this:
what we agree on:
Developer A makes changes to the file.
Simultaneously, Developer B makes other changes and commits those changes.
Developer A then tries to commit his/her changes, but realizes that DevB made other changes, a merge is required.
Here's where the issue comes up:
Developer A opens the merge in the Vault merge tool. The only copy of Developer A's changes are in his local working copy (the left pane of the merge tool). if the developer makes a mistake and saves an improperly merged content (the center pane), his/her local working copy (along which his/her changes) is lost for all time as the resultant merge (center pane) overwrites his/her working copy.
So, for example, in this case, if a large section of code at the bottom of a file was modified extensively, but the developer misses this in the merge tool and hte merge tool doesn't make the right choice, then that developers' changes are overwritten and lost when the merge is saved by the merge tool (prior to committing).
hope that makes sense.
either way, having the merge tool make a backup copy of the working copy of the file prior to saving the merge, would solve this problem.
what we agree on:
Developer A makes changes to the file.
Simultaneously, Developer B makes other changes and commits those changes.
Developer A then tries to commit his/her changes, but realizes that DevB made other changes, a merge is required.
Here's where the issue comes up:
Developer A opens the merge in the Vault merge tool. The only copy of Developer A's changes are in his local working copy (the left pane of the merge tool). if the developer makes a mistake and saves an improperly merged content (the center pane), his/her local working copy (along which his/her changes) is lost for all time as the resultant merge (center pane) overwrites his/her working copy.
So, for example, in this case, if a large section of code at the bottom of a file was modified extensively, but the developer misses this in the merge tool and hte merge tool doesn't make the right choice, then that developers' changes are overwritten and lost when the merge is saved by the merge tool (prior to committing).
hope that makes sense.
either way, having the merge tool make a backup copy of the working copy of the file prior to saving the merge, would solve this problem.