[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: |
Sat, 16 Jun 2001 09:25:10 -0700 |
>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden
>On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 10:15:16PM -0700, Paul Sander wrote:
>> 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.
>Two points: If I do that manually, I can easily avoid having to deal with
>a conflict by doing it in multiple stages.
>When I want to merge all the things in, I merge in the diff from 1.1 ->
>1.1.0.2. Then I apply the diff from 1.1.0.3 -> current. Because I know
>I've already applied 1.1.0.3.
>If you're going to automate this, this is how I would expect the automation
>to work.
If I understand you correctly, what you want is this:
Merge 1:
specification - version 1.4 = 1.3 + ( 1.1.0.3 - 1.1.0.2 )
result - version 1.4 = 1.3 + ( 1.1.0.3 - 1.1.0.2 )
Merge 2:
specification - version 1.5 = 1.4 + ( 1.1.0.5 - 1.1 )
result - version 1.5 = 1.4 + ( 1.1.0.5 - 1.1.0.3 ) + ( 1.1.0.2 - 1.1 )
Is this correct?
What about the case where the first merge is a partial, where the result
(version 1.5) contains only a subset of the deltas between 1.1.0.3 and
1.1.0.2? In this case, applying all of (1.1.0.5 - 1.1) to 1.4 and resolving
conflicts seems like the right thing to do.
>--- 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, 2001/06/15
- Re: Maintaining branches..., Mike Castle, 2001/06/15
- Re: Maintaining branches...,
Paul Sander <=
- 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
Re: Maintaining branches..., Ralph Mack, 2001/06/13
RE: Maintaining branches..., Thornley, David, 2001/06/14