So you are replacing HEAD with the branch and throwing out the HEAD code altogether?
I'm still not sure why the branch can't remain as the current point of development, with the added bonus of saving you a big pain in copying and committing files (you know you already have the outright lead on recent commits, right? :) http://maven.apache.org/developer-activity-report.html > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, 18 August 2003 5:16 PM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: RE: branch merge strategy WAS: some cvs commit thread :) > > > Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 18/08/2003 > 05:08:23 PM: > > > Right so you are rolling back the core changes, but not the plugin > changes > > on HEAD? > There've been very few plugin changes on HEAD, and I've > rolled them all > into the branch, so no, I'm not picking up plugin changes on > HEAD as a > general rule, as most of them will break Maven. > > > I'm not sure how you are going to execute it - sounds like > a pain in > > the butt. > Yep, but I'm ok with it. > > > I thought the branch was pretty much up to date with > relevant changes > > on HEAD and going along happily... So occasionally merging stuff and > repairing > > HEAD should work out ok. > HEAD is completely foobar'ed as far as core maven goes, so > pretty much all > that will be replaced with what's in the branch. > > > -- > dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting > Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/ > > >
