Karl Fogel wrote:
> Ben Elliston <bje@air.net.au> writes:
>
>>It would be great if I could, at the very least:
>>
>> * identify branches that are missing the patch;
Classic way to do this is to examine the files involved to see if they
have the post-patch version. :-/ A true changeset tool would be able to
tell you whether the patch had been (at some point) applied to a
particular branch. (Though not whether a subsequent patch had
reintroduced the bug, of course.)
>> * have subversion tell me if my patch would apply cleanly to each of
>> the affected branches;
>> * perhaps even apply them for me without requiring a working copy of
>> each branch. (I realise this is a little foolish in that all branches
>> should be checked out, built and tested, but often, we are able to
>> make that call on sufficiently trivial patches that affect enough
>> branches)
>>
>>Comments?
>
>
> Congratulations, you've just described the changeset problem :-).
Indeed. The case of merging two branches *after* this patch is applied
to both of them is the most common one such that 3-way merge often gives
false conflicts and full changeset handling works properly.
> This is very complex, and we've decided to defer it until after 1.0
> (excepting any small, simple accommodations that can be made earlier
> to partially alleviate the problem).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Dec 23 09:14:01 2002