[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: commit to branch
From: |
Stephen Rasku |
Subject: |
Re: commit to branch |
Date: |
Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:42:11 -0800 (PST) |
You can also use the "-p" option. To give the same version to a
branch to what is on the trunk:
cvs update -r branch
cvs update -A -p file > file
cvs ci
You have to repeat the middle step for each file you need to check in.
Unfortunately, if you have a lot of files changed, this can become
quite cumbersome.
Derek Price wrote:
>Martin Entlicher wrote:
>
>> Yes, thanks for the replies. I know, that I can do a merge on the
branch
>> with the HEAD. But I thought, that "cvs ci -r .." makes it simpler.
I
>> want to have two exactly the same revisions on the main trunk and
on the
>> branch. We have branched stable version of our software and when
doing
>> bug fixes that applies to the main trunk as well as to the branch,
I
>> have to merge it in the second working where the branch is checked
out
>> and resolve conflicts.
>>
>> Is it possible to add a support to force commit to a different
branch
>> without having to do merging and resolving conflicts ? Otherwise -r
>> option to commit has not much sense IMO if it doesn't work in this
case.
>> It would speed up my work.
>
>It doesn't work in order to prevent you from shooting yourself in the
foot.
>e.g. If someone had checked in data on the branch and you didn't
realize it
>then this would overwrite those changes. If you really want this
behavior,
>you might try '-f', but I don't think that works in this case either.
If this
>was going to be hacked in, I think it would need another version of
the
>'force' option (but not '-f') for this particular case.
>
- commit to branch, Martin Entlicher, 2001/03/20
- Re: commit to branch,
Stephen Rasku <=