Re: use case question

On 7/8/05, Joshua Varner <jlvarner@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/8/05, Phil Lawrence <prlawrence@lehigh.edu> wrote:

> Typically long-lived branches (like the VEN7 branch) would have the
> trunk merged into them periodically so that they stay in sync, thus
> minimizing the changes when VEN7 is merged back into the trunk.

The drawback of long lived branches and frequent merges from trunk is that
you have to track all the merges you did as Subversion does not do it for you.

In your case though as I understand there is no actual development done on trunk
but you have distinct branches for each issue (e.g. 656) and you merge
them to trunk
one-by-one as they are ready.

I think I would take the same branches (e.g. 656) and merge them to
VEN7 as well.
This way it is actually easier to keep track of the merges.
When you decide that VEN7 is stable you already have all the changes
that went into trunk. you can them move trunk to be VEN6 (or remove it
altogether)
and VEN7 to be trunk.

Gabor

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Jul 10 08:41:27 2005