On Nov 25, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Geert Janssens wrote: > Actually this kind of measures show the weakness of svn merging. > It's pretty > hard to track merges in svn. > > I saw a migration to git on your roadmap as well. I would suggest > you re- > evaluate this merge restriction at that time. Git merges are more > powerful and > easier to track. > > In general, though I don't think merging outside of the revision > control > system is a good idea.
Agreed. Merges should not be performed manually by applying patch- sets. Doing so cancels out the benefit of using a VCS in the first place. For instance, "blame" functionality suffers, and auditing in general becomes problematic. More significantly, when/if the project ultimately is converted to DVCS (git, mercurial, etc.) these fake "manual merges" will not be recognized by the DVCS as real merges. -- ES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d _______________________________________________ Crystal-main mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/crystal-main Unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
