On 09-05-2010 00:36:06 +0200, Martin Kersten wrote:
Stefan Manegold wrote:
In case the changes of May 04 indeed caused the reported performance
degradation, I assume this checkin should then also be back-ported to the
Jun2010 branch that was created on May 06 and hence also contains the
For those using hg transplant to backport changes.
Using the -m flag of transplant causes a merge commit to occur. This
means two heads (could be branches) are merged into one. For some not
yet fully understood reason this causes a hg merge to perform a large
batch of changes, probably
Fabian,
Thanks for the analysis and explanations!
One minor(?) point, though:
So far (as far as I'm aware), we used assume an implicite order of our
branches, e.g,. Feb2010 - Jun2010 - default, and we used hg merge to
propagate (many/all) changes from left to right, e.g., from Feb2010 to
On 09-05-2010 12:47:19 +0200, Stefan Manegold wrote:
Fabian,
Thanks for the analysis and explanations!
One minor(?) point, though:
So far (as far as I'm aware), we used assume an implicite order of our
branches, e.g,. Feb2010 - Jun2010 - default, and we used hg merge to
propagate