cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ovidiu Predescu <>
Subject Re: AW: Commiting on 2.0 branch and HEAD
Date Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:59:37 GMT
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:00:56 +0200, "Carsten Ziegeler" <> wrote:

> > Giacomo Pati wrote:
> >
> > There are some drawback to this procedure.
> > 1. Lots of merge conflict will happen because of keyword expansion we use
> >    in the source files ($Revision 1.2.1.$ etc.). Using the -kk options
> >    on the join command can corrupt binary files if my understanding
> >    of that option is correct.
> > 2. The log comments entered on branch commits are not joined into
> > the HEAD
> >    branch.
> >
> Yes and because of these two reasons I would suggest that we keep both
> branches in sync which means all commits for the 20 branch should also
> be applied to the 2.1 branch (except the stuff which is really only for
> 2.0). Of course, we should not add all commits of the 2.1 branch to
> the 2.0. So keeping in sync is perhaps not the right formulation.
> I could imagine that it is a very hard work to join the branches after
> some weeks without making mistakes.

I also believe we should be commit both on the 2.0 branch and on the
HEAD(*). Some patches designed for the branch may not apply cleanly to
the HEAD, and in fact may require a slightly different
implementation. It's just a lot easier to apply small patches to the
two branches, as it is done by multiple individuals, than having
somebody come at a later point and doing all the work. The drawback
with this however is that it may increase the time needed to test the
two branches.

(*) Carsten, I assume that the 2.1 branch you mention above is really
the HEAD. There should be no need for a 2.1 branch until we actually
release 2.1.

Ovidiu Predescu <> (inside HP's firewall only) (GNU, Emacs, other stuff)

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, email:

View raw message