directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Karasulu" <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: svn commit: r539993 [1/2] - in /directory/apacheds/branches/kerberos-encryption-types: btree-base/src/main/java/org/apache/directory/server/core/partition/impl/btree/ constants/src/main/java/org/apache/directory/server/constants/ core-unit/src/te
Date Mon, 21 May 2007 16:08:37 GMT
Oh good I hope I am wrong here.  I guess SVN is smart enough to realized
that you've
applied these changes before.  I just wanted to save you a hassle if that
was in fact
the case.

If most of this work in the kerberos branch is done why don't you just go
ahead and
merge it to the trunk.  This is not he sasl branch which has some big impact
on the
LDAP components I figure so go right ahead.

Alex

On 5/21/07, Enrique Rodriguez <enriquer9@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/21/07, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
> > Enrique,
> >
> > On 5/20/07, erodriguez@apache.org <erodriguez@apache.org > wrote:
> > > Author: erodriguez
> > > Date: Sun May 20 18:53:07 2007
> > > New Revision: 539993
> > >
> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=539993
> > > Log:
> > > Merged revisions r533844:539990 from ApacheDS trunk to
> > 'kerberos-encryption-types' branch.
> >
> > You seemed to have merged changes from the trunk to your branch.  This
> is
> > going to now make it very
> > difficult if not impossible for you to merge your branch back into the
> > trunk.  What's going to happen is
> > you'll get massive amounts of conflicts when you attempt to merge.  Are
> you
> > sure you didn't instead
> > want to merge this branch into the trunk?
>
> Hi, Alex,
>
> Thanks for reviewing my commits.
>
> This commit represents feature branch maintenance, straight out of the
> SVN redbook:
>
>
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.branchmerge.commonuses.html#svn.branchmerge.commonuses.patterns.feature
>
> Not only is it good practice to keep a branch in sync with the trunk,
> I had to do so in this case because the branch failed to compile due
> to a change in a dependency.
>
> As for conflicts, I performed similar branch maintenance and merge
> back-to-trunk as recently as last week (on another project) and I'm
> confident I won't have the major issues you describe.
>
> Enrique
>

Mime
View raw message