[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: BitBucket: GPL-ed KitBeeper clone
    Pavel Machek wrote:
    > Hi!
    >>Now if the development went that way:
    >>1.7 -> (branching, i.e. copy)
    >> v v
    >> v
    >>1.8 v
    >> v -> (merge)
    >>1.9 v
    >> v v
    >>1.10 v
    >> v -> (merge)
    >> v v
    >> v
    >> 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, it's going to work correctly. It will fuse
    >>the 1.7->1.8 patch with the> patch and apply the
    >>result to 1.7 to get The two patches have no reason to
    >>overlap.> will essentially be identical to
    > 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?

    --------------------. "If it ain't broke now,
    Eli Carter \ it will be soon." -- crypto-gram
    eli.carter(a) `-------------------------------------------------

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.024 / U:2.608 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site