[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Maintaining branches...
From: |
Paul Sander |
Subject: |
Re: Maintaining branches... |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:15:16 -0700 |
>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden
>On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 04:48:33PM -0700, Paul Sander wrote:
>> >--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden
>> >But consider the following sequence:
>> >
>> >branch at 1.1. Branch has 1.1.0.1 and 1.1.0.2.
>> >
>> >1.1.0.3 is made, and that particular change is needed immediately on the
>> >branch branch, so only it is moved over. So 1.2 == 1.1 + 1.1.0.3.
>> >Changes 1.1.0.4 and 1.1.0.5 are made. Now we want to migrate all of those
>> >changes onto the main branch.
>>
>> I believe the desired behavior really is this:
>>
>> First merge:
>> version 1.2 = version 1.1 + ( version 1.1.0.3 - version 1.1 )
>>
>> Second merge:
>> version 1.3 = version 1.2 + ( version 1.1.0.5 - version 1.1.0.3)
>>
>> Is this correct?
>That's what I thought at first, but now I believe he really does
>mean:
> First merge:
> version 1.2 = 1.1 + (1.1.0.3 - 1.1.0.2)
> commit trunk-only revs 1.3 and 1.4
> Second merge:
> version 1.5 = 1.4 + (1.1.0.2 - 1.1) + (1.1.0.5 - 1.1.0.3)
> = 1.1 + (1.4 - 1.2 [sic]) + ( 1.1.0.5 - 1.1)
>And even if he doesn't mean that, it's a case that seems worth
>discussing. Say you have the familiar situation of Release-2
>development on the trunk, and a Post-Release-1 bug-fix branch B.
>Someone fixes a bug on B. Then, before the team is ready to cope
>with a wholesale merge, it's discovered that that particular bug
>is a showstopper for continued trunk development. So you want to
>merge that bug fix only, but keep the rest of the fixes on B
>isolated until a later date.
Your first case is really two merges, one requiring the user to supply
version 1.1.0.3 as the common contributor. The other is a single join
with version 1.1.0.2.
You could also do this:
version 1.5 = 1.4 + ( 1.1.0.5 - 1.1 )
And then resolve the inevitable conflicts resulting from the first bug-fix
merge. This is how CVS currently works.
>--- End of forwarded message from address@hidden
- Re: Maintaining branches..., (continued)
- Re: Maintaining branches..., Mike Castle, 2001/06/14
- Re: Maintaining branches..., Derek R. Price, 2001/06/14
- Re: Maintaining branches..., Mike Castle, 2001/06/14
- Re: Maintaining branches..., Derek R. Price, 2001/06/14
- Re: Maintaining branches..., Mike Castle, 2001/06/14
- Off list comment (was: Re: Maintaining branches...), Mike Castle, 2001/06/18
- Re: Maintaining branches..., Paul Sander, 2001/06/14
- Re: Maintaining branches..., Eric Siegerman, 2001/06/14
- Re: Maintaining branches...,
Paul Sander <=
- Re: Maintaining branches..., Mike Castle, 2001/06/15
- Re: Maintaining branches..., Paul Sander, 2001/06/16
- Re: Maintaining branches..., Mike Castle, 2001/06/16
- Re: Maintaining branches..., Paul Sander, 2001/06/16
- Re: Maintaining branches..., Mark, 2001/06/15
- Re: Maintaining branches..., Paul Sander, 2001/06/16
- Re: Maintaining branches..., Mark, 2001/06/18
- Re: Maintaining branches..., Paul Sander, 2001/06/14
- Re: Maintaining branches..., Paul Sander, 2001/06/14
- Re: Maintaining branches..., Paul Sander, 2001/06/14