subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Aron Bloom <>
Subject RE: Issue in svn E195020
Date Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:15:57 GMT
The stackoverflow issue seems to be similar, I cant confirm it's the same issue however, since
there is no "tell tail sign of failure"

However, I am using 1.8.11, and the article implies this bug has been fixed since 1.7.0


From: Scott Aron Bloom []
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 6:46 AM
To: Johan Corveleyn
Subject: RE: Issue in svn E195020

Sorry,  I misunderstood your question.   Svn up succeeds but does not fix th3 svn merge issue.

I'll look at the stack overflow issue since we do have a bunch of externals.

-------- Original message --------
From: Johan Corveleyn <<>>
Date:03/31/2015 02:29 (GMT-08:00)
To: Scott Aron Bloom <<>>
Subject: Re: Issue in svn E195020

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Scott Aron Bloom <<>>
> ~~Scott
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Johan Corveleyn <<>>
> Date:03/30/2015 12:48 (GMT-08:00)
> To: Scott Aron Bloom <<>>
> Cc:<>
> Subject: Re: Issue in svn E195020
>> Its has been common, that after the merge, if another merge is attempted
>> we
>> get the E195020 error, (cannot merge into mixed-revision), a simple
>> svn up
>> Fixes the issue, however lately, the svn up fails, and the E195020
>> continues.
> Why does svn up fail? Error message? It would be interesting to
> address this first, because merging into a uniform revision working
> copy is still the recommended workflow.
> =
> I get error E195020 every time.

You said "svn up fails". Does 'svn up' give an error message then? I
find it hard to believe that 'svn up'  would say:

   svn: E195020: Cannot merge into mixed-revision working copy [X:Y];
try updating first"

So does 'svn up' really fail (i.e. gives an error)? If so, can you
please copy-paste its error message?

Or do you mean that 'svn up' succeeds, but it doesn't fix the problem
of the mixed-rev working copy?

If the latter, maybe your problem is similar to this report on
Stackoverflow (related to a file external, which apparently makes svn
see the working copy as mixed rev -- and the file external doesn't get
updated to the uniform revision):


View raw message