Pretty much. I am just doing a sanity compare to make sure I pick it all up. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/
Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 18/08/2003 05:22:56 PM: > 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/ > > > > > >
