Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
>>Now if the development went that way:
>>
>>1.7 -> 1.7.1.1 (branching, i.e. copy)
>> v v
>> v 1.7.1.2
>>1.8 v
>> v -> 1.7.1.3 (merge)
>>1.9 v
>> v v
>>1.10 v
>> v -> 1.7.1.4 (merge)
>> v v
>> v 1.7.1.5
>> v v
>>1.11 <- (merge)
>>
>>Pretty much standard, a developper created a new branch, made some
>>changes in it, synced with mainline, synced with mailine again a
>>little later, made some new changes and finally folded the branch back
>>in the mainline. Let's admit the developper changes don't conflict by
>>themselves with the mainline changes.
>>
>>CVS, for all the merges, is going to pick 1.7 as the reference. The
>>first time, for 1.7.1.3, it's going to work correctly. It will fuse
>>the 1.7->1.8 patch with the 1.7.1.1->1.7.1.2 patch and apply the
>>result to 1.7 to get 1.7.1.3. The two patches have no reason to
>>overlap. 1.7.1.2->1.7.1.3 will essentially be identical to
>>1.7->1.8,
>
>
> So, basically, if branch was killed and recreated after each merge
> from mainline, problem would be solved, right?
>
> Pavel
You would lose the history that branch gave you.
Or do you mean create a new branch (with a new name) at the point where
the old branch was merged, and no longer use the old branch for commits?
Eli
--------------------. "If it ain't broke now,
Eli Carter \ it will be soon." -- crypto-gram
eli.carter(a)inet.com `-------------------------------------------------
Hi!
> >So, basically, if branch was killed and recreated after each merge
> >from mainline, problem would be solved, right?
> >
> > Pavel
>
> You would lose the history that branch gave you.
> Or do you mean create a new branch (with a new name) at the point where
> the old branch was merged, and no longer use the old branch for
> >commits?
Yes, that's what I meant.
Pavel
--
Horseback riding is like software...
...vgf orggre jura vgf serr.