geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim McConnell <tim.mcco...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: SVK
Date Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:08:58 GMT
Hi Vamsavardhana, No they're certainly not causing any problems--I was just curious about them
more 
than anything. I've been ignoring most of the smerge conflicts due to their omissions, but
sounds 
like they should be kept in sync so I'll take care of them if they're missing. Also, to address
your 
second question, it will make it easier for me if you commit related 1.2 and trunk changes

simultaneously, but don't no one should feel obligated. That said though--I wouldn't try to
dissuade 
you from doing so. Thanks much

Tim

Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> Tim,
> 
> I have been adding $Rev$ $Date$ to any of the files that are getting 
> modified and that don't already have these tags.  Is this causing any 
> trouble?
> 
> One other question...  Is it better to commit related changes to 
> branches\1.2 and trunk in a single revision?  Does it help in any manner?
> 
> --vamsi
> 
> On 12/6/06, *Tim McConnell* <tim.mcconne@gmail.com 
> <mailto:tim.mcconne@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Jason, since you've done this before make you can help me understand
>     to what degree we should strive
>     to keep these files in sync. I notice that many of the differences
>     between Trunk and the new 1.2
>     Branch are related to omissions of $Rev and $Date in various java,
>     js, jsp, and properties files.
>     Are these entries being added automatically by either SVN or an IDE,
>     and should we bother syncing
>     files with only these differences ?? Thanks
> 
>     Tim
> 
>     Jason Dillon wrote:
>      > Yes, this is the best way... merge from 1.2 to trunk, as *most*
>     of those
>      > changes will be fairly simple to apply, and automatic with SVK
>     (well, up
>      > until the point when we rearrange trunk, but until then).
>      >
>      > But some minor changes may also need to go the other way.  SVK
>     should be
>      > able to handle this.  When I was working with SVK for the m2
>     migration
>      > branch, I was keeping all svn notifications I got, then when they
>      > buffered up enough, I would use SVK to merge each change,
>     limiting the
>      > path to either file or src/main/java for the modules affected to
>     avoid
>      > pulling in unwanted changes.  In the case of the m2 migration,
>     unwanted
>      > changes would be stuff in a pom.  You could do a merge from the
>     branch
>      > root, then cherry pick the changes, but that is not much fun when
>     there
>      > are a bunch of changes.
>      >
>      > Anyways... IMO its best to try to only merge from 1.2 to trunk,
>     and if
>      > needed only merge from trunk to 1.2 on a per-file basis.
>      >
>      > That means if you are working on fixing a bug, its best to fix it in
>      > 1.2.  But experience has shown that people will work off of trunk and
>      > merge into branches more often than desired.  But, if you are
>     careful
>      > about the merge then no major problems should pop up.
>      >
>      > I also recommend, when using svk smerge, that you first run with
>     -C to
>      > see what it wants to do first.  Limit the changes pulled in to
>     one merge
>      > if possible to avoid picking up something you did not want.
>      >
>      > And when you do the merge, use the -I flag to include the
>     original text
>      > of the commit into the merge automatically, this makes it easier to
>      > track... and more automated... as if there are not conflicts, the
>     merge
>      > will not require any user interaction.
>      >
>      > When you initially setup the svk config you will need to use
>     --baseless
>      > on the first smerge, but only for the first... all afterwards SVK
>     should
>      > have enough details to find the base, not sure what will happen
>     if you
>      > keep using --baseless, so I don't recommend it.
>      >
>      > And if you run into anything strange, unlikely but might happen,
>     hope in
>      > #svk on freenode and ask, they have been very helpful to me.
>      >
>      > --jason
>      >
>      >
>      > On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:03 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
>      >
>      >> Ok, I'm setting up SVK so that we can keep changes between the
>     new 1.2
>      >> Branch and Trunk in sync. I don't mean to be too simplistic but I
>      >> would like to verify these assumptions on my part are correct
>     (before
>      >> I do anything untoward):
>      >>
>      >> 1. The primary intent will be to ensure that changes made in the 1.2
>      >> Branch will get merged into Trunk. Ideally these will be fixes
>     and/or
>      >> enhancements that have been made to the 1.2 Branch that must also be
>      >> ported into Trunk as well.
>      >>
>      >> 2. Changes made to Trunk will NOT be merged into the 1.2 Branch.
>     This
>      >> should pretty much be business as usual (it would be very
>     difficult to
>      >> try to identify just code fixes in Trunk that have to be
>     retrofitted
>      >> back into the 1.2 Branch).
>      >>
>      >> This seem reasonable to everyone ??
>      >>
>      >> Thanks much
>      >> Tim
>      >
>      >
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message