marc gonzalez-carnicer <carnicer.lists_at_gmail.com> wrote on 04/25/2009
> 2009/4/24 Mike Meyer <mmeyer_at_lexmark.com>:
> > marc gonzalez-carnicer <carnicer.lists_at_gmail.com> wrote on 04/24/2009
> > 07:57:57 AM:
> >> hi Mike,
> >> thanks for your email. your idea is fine, but that's not be what i
> >> asked. perhaps there are some revisions that i may want to exclude on
> >> purpose, either temporarily or forever. hence the email subject,
> >> "cherrypicking".
> > You're right, it doesn't answer the question you asked; I saw that
> > already been answered (you weren't doing anything wrong, that's the
> > works), and was trying to offer a better solution to your problem.
> actually, because of the chaos caused by the multiple merge operations
> triggered by my single command, before posting i had done as you
> suggested : merge all the trunk into the feature branch, then merge
> back, not copy (a copy / overwrite may not take care of added and
> specially deleted files).
Yup; that's actually what I meant. I'm used to the P4 terminology, where
copy is a special case of merge, not a seperate command. Sorry 'bout the
> i can agree with your definition that when something makes your life
> difficult, that is probably a bad idea to do. however, i do strongly
> believe that merging back a feature branch into the trunk should be
> something easy and smooth, as long as development in both branches has
> been done with a minimum care.
Maybe the people I work with (including me) just aren't careful enough -
the only merges that are reliably "easy and smooth" are the ones that are
"make this branch look exactly like that branch". Which is why I try to
arrange things so that's what merges to the trunk look like.
> the fact that multiple revision ranges merging is performed in
> multiple steps does not always allow for trouble free merging back.
> that's a feature i was used to in an old, now deprecated VCS named
> sccs (used by sun's teamware), that is fundamental for team
Would that be the same SCCS that Bell Labs shipped with several versions
of Unix? Until it was displaced by the (license-free) RCS from Purdue?
Neither of which properly supporte distributed development?
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-04-27 16:42:30 CEST