[PROPOSAL] Backporting, conflicts and STATUS.

Whenever we do a backport we nominate a set of revisions on trunk to be
applied to the branch. When there are no conflicts this works great.
Everyone can read the diff from trunk, vote on it knowing that those are
the exact changes that will be applied to the branch.

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.

-- 
Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org