On 11/4/05, Duncan Murdoch <subversion@murdoch-sutherland.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/2005 2:07 PM, Berlin Brown wrote:
> > Am I wrong in saying that, it seems easier to delete a branch and then
> > use svn copy to recreate that branch than it is to constantly do a
> > merge and commit to keep up to date with for example a trunk?
>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but this sounds as though it won't work.
> If you have committed changes on both the branch and the trunk and you
> haven't merged them at the time you do the delete, they won't be merged
> when you recreate the branch, whether you copy from the trunk or the
> deleted branch.
> >
> > Am I wrong here?
>
> I think so...
>
> Duncan Murdoch
> >
> > Is there a lot wasted by doing constant copying.
> >
It can be that if the changes on a branch are small relative to the version
from which they branched and the trunk has significant changes, that it
can be simpler to delete the branch, copy the trunk, then merge the
changes from the old branch into the new one. This has been done in
subversion itself on occasion, but if the branch is one that is actively
worked on and changes are merged on a regular basis then that is simpler,
b/c the amount of changes to merge at any given point of time are smaller.
Josh
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 4 21:33:01 2005