[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: gcc source management requirements

From: Ketil Z. Malde <ketil_at_ii.uib.no>
Date: 2002-12-10 14:10:06 CET

Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:

>> (2f): I'm not quite sure what this is asking, but AFAIK Subversion
>> doesn't create "microbranches" to resolve conflicts.

> See <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-12/msg00487.html> for a lengthy
> explanation.

So Mel commits revision 754, which is checked out by Dave and Helen.
Dave commits 755, and Helen's update causes conflicts.

If I understand correctly, you would automate the process where Helen
manually make a branch at revision 754 and commit to that branch?
Something like (modulo bad syntax):

        svn cp -r754 http://.../trunk http://.../branches/helen/
        svn co http://...branches/helen/ my_branch
        cp -a trunk/ my_branch/
        cd my_branch/
        svn commit -m ".."

Is it really important that it is automated? Does other tools support
this, and does it really solve your problem?

Of course, one problem is that Helen will probably try to do an
        
        svn update

first, which will end in a bunch of conflicts. Is there any way in
SVN to undo such an update? Alternatively, is there a way to dry-run
an update to check for conflicts?

Anyway, it seems to me you might have the problem (in the example case
on the web page) without any actual conflicts in the update, so
perhaps that's the wrong track. Helen should probably use an explicit
branch, which is merged into the trunk.

-kzm

-- 
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Dec 10 14:20:51 2002

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.