Carsten Ziegeler a écrit :
>
> > Giacomo Pati wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > > Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi cocooners,
> > > >
> > > > Now that we've got two branches for C2, what's the easiest way to
> > > commit
> > > > changes on both ? I made two checkouts (HEAD and cocoon_20_branch) :
> > > do
> > > > I have to manually copy modified files from one checkout to the other
> > > > and issue 2 commits, or is there a way to commit on both branches at
> > > > once ?
> > > >
> > > I think the only working solution is to make two commits. This is some
> > > overhead we have to cope with but I think it's unavoidable.
> > >
> > > My question is: Should we keep both branches in sync until we release
> > > the 2.0 final? I think we should, so I would suggest to really make
> > > always two submits.
> > > What do you all think?
> >
> > I don't see it as a necessity that the HEAD branch have to be in
> > sync after each
> > commit to the 2.0 branch. But I think we should use the CVS to
> > sync it for us if
> > we need it and not commiting stuff here and there. So, lets see
> > how CVS can help
> > us synching the branches.
> >
> > 1. Lets commit stuff needed for beta 2 to the 2.0 branch only.
> > 2. Lets commit new/experimental stuff to the HEAD branch only.
> +1 for 2.
>
+1 from me also for 2 (see also previous post about SOAP)
> > 3. Lets suppose that all that has been/will be commited to the
> > 2.0 branch will
> > make its way into the HEAD branch someday.
> > 4. If someone wants/needs to sync the HEAD branch with the 2.0 branch the
> > following procedure should be applied (the names in the
> > brackets denotes
> > the local branch directory you need to be cd'ed]:
> >
> > #make the changes available in the 2.0 branch (if needed)
> > [20_branch] cvs ci -m "..."
> >
> > #make your HEAD branch up to date (if needed)
> > [HEAD] cvs upd
> >
> > #join the HEAD with the 2.0 branch from the last merge point(*).
> > [HEAD] cvs upd -j cocoon_20_branch_mergepoint -j cocoon_20_branch
> >
> > #cleanup merge conflicts (yes, this can be the hard work)
> Exactly!
>
> > [HEAD] edit ...
> >
> > #commit the joined version to the HEAD branch
> > [HEAD] cvs ci -m "..."
> >
> > #move the cocoon_20_branch_mergepoint tag to the head of the 2.0 branch
> > [20_branch] cvs tag -d cocoon_20_branch_mergepoint
> > [20_branch] cvs tag cocoon_20_branch_mergepoint
> >
> > (*)The first time we do that there is no mergepoint tag, so the
> > '-j mergepoint'
> > must not be written.
> >
> > There are some drawback to this procedure.
> > 1. Lots of merge conflict will happen because of keyword expansion we use
> > in the source files ($Revision 1.2.1.$ etc.). Using the -kk options
> > on the join command can corrupt binary files if my understanding
> > of that option is correct.
> > 2. The log comments entered on branch commits are not joined into
> > the HEAD
> > branch.
> >
> Yes and because of these two reasons I would suggest that we keep both
> branches in sync which means all commits for the 20 branch should also
> be applied to the 2.1 branch (except the stuff which is really only for
> 2.0). Of course, we should not add all commits of the 2.1 branch to
> the 2.0. So keeping in sync is perhaps not the right formulation.
> I could imagine that it is a very hard work to join the branches after
> some weeks without making mistakes.
>
Totally agree.
> Carsten
>
> Open Source Group sunShine - b:Integrated
> ================================================================
> Carsten Ziegeler, S&N AG, Klingenderstrasse 5, D-33100 Paderborn
> www.sundn.de mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ================================================================
>
> > Any comments?
> >
> > Giacomo
> >
--
Sylvain Wallez
Anyware Technologies - http://www.anyware-tech.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
