>
>
>
>(2f): I'm not quite sure what this is asking, but AFAIK Subversion doesn't
>create "microbranches" to resolve conflicts. Conflicts are resolved in the
>working copy, but remember that copies of all three versions of a merged file
>are available. How would "microbranches" be used and why are they necessary?
>
>
Maybe it's something I always look for in version control software, and
never find:
I often want to be able to commit stuff to the repository.
The commit is rejected, but I want it to go somewhere in the repository.
Therefore, the only option is to create a branch from the version you
checked out, and commit your changes there.
The thing is, I never trust myself to be able to resolve the conflicts
properly.
I think the idea of branching like this takes the pressure off people,
they don't have to worry that
they've deleted the wrong file, or reverted an important merge, just
because the other
person was unavailable when a critical decision was made.
As for the true definition of microbranches, a Google search turned up
nothing.
-Rob.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Dec 10 03:59:32 2002