[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:0.328 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site