Jared Hardy wrote:
>
>
> When I was suggesting a "user-controlled branch commit now, merge to
> trunk later" workflow, I was just saying it is similar to your multi-WC
> workflow. Think (user-branch = WC-copy), just one is server-store and
> the other is local-store. The big difference is that
> branch-commit/trunk-merge cycles would benefit from pervasive
> changelists in a way that the multi-WC workflow would not. Users could
> re-use the same changelists (as used in previous branch commits) during
> the trunk-merge cycle. A multi-WC merge cycle is implicit in the WC
> commit order, and wouldn't have a lot of Changelist cross-over potential.
>
> --Jared
>
Understood. In other systems I've this called "shelving", where you can
push-out a set of changes to a temporary (private) space without a
commit, do some other work, and then un-shelf with (as necessary) a
private merge to get things back in sync. I think that's the same as
your branch-commit where the branch == the shelf.
My real push-back to Ben was really to question what the cost/benefit of
the proposal was if he is basing this on my (a) scenario, since that
seems to be primarily about svn assisting in book-keeping.
--Tim
Received on Thu Apr 20 04:39:22 2006