On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 11:37:57AM -0400, Stas Bekman wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
Thanks Torsten. Hopefully this was the last thing lost in the merging of the rename branch, which was promised to just work.
yeah, well, I'm sorry about that. I did the best I could.
We know that Geoff. I wasn't talking about you, but the promise that svn will just do the right thing. Apparently it quite sucks at automatic merging and is too error-prone.
It may be easier to blame the tool but SVN just does what you tell it, there is no automatic branch merging. SVN is little more advanced than CVS in this regard; it relies on some external mechanism (e.g. human beans) to remember the merge points.
So, what's the best technique than with branching? Should the branch be constantly synced with the trunk? Is there an automatic way to do so? Or must each patch be manually replayed in the branch?
What went wrong here?
When the branch was merged back into the trunk several changes that have occured in the trunk since the branch was made were wiped off.
-- __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
