![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > >>Now if the development went that way: >> >>1.7 -> 1.7.1.1 (branching, i.e. copy) >> v v >> v 1.7.1.2 >>1.8 v >> v -> 1.7.1.3 (merge) >>1.9 v >> v v >>1.10 v >> v -> 1.7.1.4 (merge) >> v v >> v 1.7.1.5 >> v v >>1.11 <- (merge) >> >>Pretty much standard, a developper created a new branch, made some >>changes in it, synced with mainline, synced with mailine again a >>little later, made some new changes and finally folded the branch back >>in the mainline. Let's admit the developper changes don't conflict by >>themselves with the mainline changes. >> >>CVS, for all the merges, is going to pick 1.7 as the reference. The >>first time, for 1.7.1.3, it's going to work correctly. It will fuse >>the 1.7->1.8 patch with the 1.7.1.1->1.7.1.2 patch and apply the >>result to 1.7 to get 1.7.1.3. The two patches have no reason to >>overlap. 1.7.1.2->1.7.1.3 will essentially be identical to >>1.7->1.8, > > > So, basically, if branch was killed and recreated after each merge > from mainline, problem would be solved, right? > > Pavel You would lose the history that branch gave you. Or do you mean create a new branch (with a new name) at the point where the old branch was merged, and no longer use the old branch for commits? Eli --------------------. "If it ain't broke now, Eli Carter \ it will be soon." -- crypto-gram eli.carter(a)inet.com `------------------------------------------------- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||