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

Re: svn commit: r18231 - branches/1.3.x

From: David James <djames_at_collab.net>
Date: 2006-01-25 22:10:19 CET

On 1/25/06, Blair Zajac <blair@orcaware.com> wrote:
> djames@tigris.org wrote:
> > Author: djames
> > Date: Wed Jan 25 14:09:41 2006
> > New Revision: 18231
> >
> > Modified:
> > branches/1.3.x/STATUS
> >
> > Log:
> > * STATUS: Nominate and vote for r18230. Vote +1 (concept) on r18215, noting
> > that r18215 needs a merge branch to resolve conflicts.
> Do we have a policy on how much of a conflict is required before using a merge
> branch?
> This commit was trivial (2 lines in configure.in) and could be done by hand in
> the 1.3.x branch to resolve it. In fact, the easy was would be to do the merge,
> revert configure.in and make the change by hand.
> Maybe using a branch isn't a bad idea :)

I looked at r18215, and I didn't find it was immediately obvious how
to merge it to the 1.3.x branch. For this reason, I'd like to see a
merge branch before I can approve the change.

In general, I'd say it's best to use merge branches for all
conflicting backports, because it's the safest thing to do. I don't
want to approve a change and then later find out that the change was
merged incorrectly.



David James -- http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~james
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 25 22:10:50 2006

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.