Ben Reser <ben@reser.org> writes:
> Problem is when we run into conflicts. This is happening more and more.
> So here's my solution:
>
> a) When nominating a change to be backported the nominator *MUST*
> attempt a merge.
>
> b) If the merge creates conflicts the nominator must resolve the
> conflicts and place a patch, say in a directory called STATUS_PATCHES.
> The patch will be named after the revisions it is merging. A note will
> be included in the STATUS file mentioning that there is a conflict and
> a resolved patch exists in the STATUS_PATCHES dir.
>
> This will save whoever does the merging from feeling like they're
> guessing at the right thing to do. It will ensure that we don't end up
> with merges that are just wrong...
>
> If nobody disagrees with this I'll change HACKING to reference this.
+1. Doesn't have to be the nominator who makes the patch, of course,
but *someone* needs to do it before it can be voted on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 10 00:06:09 2004