+0 I have had troubles with the reverse structure of having the legacy code on the trunk and the latest in a branch so I would like that to switch too. As Jeanne points out, I think having 2 trunks would make merging more difficult--at least if the rules remained as noted in Adam's wiki. Now, if we were to apply patches as a one-by-one basis and no no longer perform large trunk-to-branch style merging for releases then this would be a big win. This would help to prevent accidental merging of patches that are specific to a particular release into the wrong release. This may not be what the vote is for so my vote is just neutral for now.
Regards, Matt On Nov 15, 2007 12:09 PM, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1, > > regards, > > Martin > > > On 11/15/07, Grant Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1, Andrew's suggestions make good sense. > > > > On 11/15/07, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 11/15/07, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The same fix was in both, but one had different spacing. > > > > > > Then it wasn't merged correctly and technically wasn't the same fix > > > from a repository point of view. With two active versions, ppl. would > > > be responsible for using svn commands for putting a change set in both > > > branches and not doing manual edits except for conflict resolution. > > > > > > If ppl used the tool correctly, there should not be any such conflicts. > > > > > > > Check Adam's wiki about merging the branches > > > > > > Yes, this is assuming the current procedure without an active branch on > > > JSF 1.2 > > > > > > > - Jeanne > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Grant Smith > > > > > -- > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >
