On 02/11/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > > > Sian January wrote: > > I believe that in CVS when you make a branch there's nothing in it to > > begin with, so if you check out code from the branch it looks the same > > as code in head. Then if a change is made in a file in head and that > > file hasn't been changed in the branch that change is reflected in the > > branch. My understanding is that SVN is based on CVS so I think it > > should work the same way. > > Nope. > > There is really no such thing as a branch or tag in SVN. It's just a > copy. I think it's the feature I miss most from CVS. That's very unfortunate. I had assumed that SVN was a superset of CVS as it's more recent, but obviously I was wrong :-( > So my point was that if it's only a small > > number of classes that are branched then integrating fixes shouldn't be > > that problematic. Please feel free to correct me if any of those > > assumptions are wrong. > > > > Just thinking about J2ME, I can imagine that some source files are going > > to be very different. For example there are no Java 5 features in J2ME, > > so any generic classes will have to be almost completely different. My > > concern is that trying to combine two quite different classes in the > > same file is going be very difficult to read and understand. > > Right. I don't know the first thing about ME. Maybe we should come up > w/ use cases based on Java 6 (as we're going to do it at some point) and > work from there. Yes - that seems to make much more sense. geir > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Sian > > > > > > On 02/11/06, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Sian January wrote: > > > I may be totally off track here, but how about just having two > copies > > > of all the files that differ? I don't believe it would be that > many, > > > and it would save us from having complicated source files or > > having to > > > use special tools or special IDE plug-ins. For me the value of > > having > > > clearly readable source code and being able to use an IDE out of > > the box > > > outweighs any extra effort there may be with this solution. > > > > Because I think that still means we have separate branches, and thus > > the > > integration problem for fixes. > > > > geir > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Sian > > > > > > > > > > > > On 31/10/06, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > So we all agree that it's not an ideal solution. > > > > > > Can anyone think of anything else? No one said this was > > going to be > > > easy... > > > > > > geir > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sian January > > > > > > IBM Java Technology Centre, UK > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sian January > > > > IBM Java Technology Centre, UK > -- Sian January IBM Java Technology Centre, UK