hc-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Becke <mbe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Cookie2] Patch checked in
Date Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:59:32 GMT
I would go with Oleg's suggestion.  No point in muddying up the trunk
until after 3.0 final.     Merging in the cookie2 changes shouldn't be
difficult as they are quite isolated and trunk is not likely to change
much more until after 3.0.

Mike

On 8/27/05, Ortwin Gl├╝ck <odi@odi.ch> wrote:
> Hey Oleg,
> 
> No problem really. I am thinking of how to merge the two when the work
> is done. In my experience I learnt not to use CVS merge. I have no
> experience with SVN merging. So I would do it completely manually i.e.
> using "svn diff" and "patch". If (and only if) all changes are
> completely orthogonal (e.g. patches to TRUNK never interfere with any
> code that was touched on the branch) you can:
>   * svn diff the branch's head against the branch start
>   * apply this diff to trunk
> This should work smoothly. If the changes are not orthogonal however you
> will have a pain i.t.a. merging the two.
> 
> But it is of course safer to keep the branch in sync by backporting  and
> applying every patch we make for the trunk. The work is minimal as:
>   * there won't (hopefully) not be many more patches until final 3.0
>   * we expect orthogonal changes, so no real backport work but just
> apply the same patch
> When the work on the branch is finished the branch code would then just
> completely replace everything that is on the trunk. Very easy merge indeed.
> 
> How do the others feel about it?
> 
> Odi
> 
> PS. The term "backporting" is maybe a bit misleading. Read it as
> "integrating".
> 
> 
> Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
> > Odi,
> >
> > I would not even bother keeping the COOKIE_2_BRANCH in sync with the
> > TRUNK. The Cookie2 changes are meant to be completely orthogonal to the
> > standard HTTP functions. The only critical bit are the changes to the
> > HttpMethodBase class that are luckily confined to just one or two
> > method. My Evil Plan (tm) is to let COOKIE_2_BRANCH evolve completely on
> > its own until the final 3.0 release. Immediately after the release we
> > may want branch off the 3.0 release tag the HTTPCLIENT_3_0_BRANCH, go
> > through the pain of merging COOKIE_2_BRANCH to the trunk only once and
> > live happily ever after
> >
> > What do you think about it?
> >
> > Oleg
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: httpclient-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: httpclient-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: httpclient-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: httpclient-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message