geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: SVN Branches
Date Fri, 05 Nov 2004 01:36:20 GMT
Sorry, I thought there was a follow option.... guess I was wrong.


On Nov 4, 2004, at 5:32 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> 	I like to think that I'm not an idiot (though I am getting a
> littly grumpy, for which I apologize).  I reread the entire branching
> chapter in the Subversion book, and it looks like the options are 
> exactly
> as I stated -- once you make the branch, the trunk marches on, and the
> only way to keep the branch up to date with the trunk is to continually
> merge the trunk to the branch using very specific revision numbers.  In
> other words, if your copy was done at revision 123, and a file you 
> didn't
> change gets 3 more changes on the trunk after that, your copy still 
> shows
> the file as it was in revision 123, until you merge all the changed 
> from
> 123:HEAD on the trunk into your branch.
> 	They recommend you keep track of which revisions you've already
> merged in your commit messages, which seems ridiculous to me, since the
> commit message only applies to the files that were actually changed (so
> you don't know what you merged for the branch as a whole without
> examinging every single file).  I think it would be better to keep a 
> text
> file in the root dir listing the last trunk revision you merged to your
> branch.  But even that seems fairly unpleasant.
> 	So, I ask again, without any more RTFMs, is there any convenient
> way to branch in such a way that all the unmodified files stay in 
> lockstep
> with the trunk, and only the modified files are tracked differently?
> Thanks,
> 	Aaron
> P.S. Branches were not Jeremy's idea, and I would in fact prefer to 
> avoid
> them myself, but I'd like to at least know if there's a good way to do 
> it.
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 2004, at 3:51 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 2004, at 3:45 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>> It is covered in the subversion book
>>>> Can understand why you would want to branch for security, but I 
>>>> think
>>>> you should keep working on your deployment stuff in the main trunk.
>>> If it's easy to fold back in, why not do in a branch?  There's 
>>> clearly
>>> a difference of opinion here, one in which both sides feel pretty
>>> strongly.  Out of respect and courtesy, why not do in a branch if the
>>> downside costs of having to bring it back to trunk are so low?
>> If there are differences they should be aired on this list.  I see 
>> this
>> as a back channel to not have Aaron implement a feature everyone liked
>> except Jeremy.
>>> It's rather traditional in some other projects I've been in to
>>> demonstrate contrary ideas in a way that guarantees good exposure to
>>> the community, with little disruption.
>> For a stable project that is not under active development, I
>> understand, but everything in geronimo is changing quickly.  Should I
>> have implemented disabled gbeans in another branch?  Should Alan
>> implement CORBA in a branch?  Since this is the first time for someone
>> to branch, I suspicious of the motivations.
>> -dain

View raw message