cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Diephouse <dan.diepho...@mulesource.com>
Subject Re: stupid question about branches
Date Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:37:33 GMT
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I've not tried it either. I agree though that circular merges would be
confusing though. Benson, I'd recommend making your changes on trunk/
and then we can just run svnmerge later on the 2.0.x branch.<br>
<br>
- Dan<br>
<br>
Daniel Kulp wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:200710011421.31601.dkulp@apache.org" type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">Benson,

We do have a 2.0.x branch:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cxf/branches/2.0.x-fixes/">http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cxf/branches/2.0.x-fixes/</a>

svnmerge.py is setup to merge from trunk to that branch.   I just need to 
take some time to do it.   I'd prefer not to have "circular" merges 
(merges from trunk to it as well as merges from it to trunk).   I'm not 
sure how well svnmerge.py handles the circular merges.   Anyone have 
experience with that?

Dan


On Sunday 30 September 2007, Benson Margulies wrote:
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Sure. And Dan K is manually planning to grab commits for 2.0.3. If
there were a branch already, (once my karma works) I'd be happy to
make some fixes in the 2.0.3 branch and then merge them in the forward
direction.

    </pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From: Bozhong Lin [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:blin@iona.com">mailto:blin@iona.com</a>]
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:17 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org">cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org</a>
Subject: Re: stupid question about branches

trunk is essentially a branch for 2.1...

Regards,
Bo

Benson Margulies wrote:
      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">Howcome we don't have two visible branches, one for 2.0.3 and one
        </pre>
      </blockquote>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap="">for

    </pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">2.1, right now?
        </pre>
      </blockquote>
    </blockquote>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->


  </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mulesource.com">http://mulesource.com</a>
| <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://netzooid.com/blog">http://netzooid.com/blog</a></pre>
</body>
</html>

Mime
View raw message