In response to Chris Rydalch saying that search-technote works for him,
in combination with it passing all my tests, I'd like to merge it to trunk.
What is the correct procedure for doing so?
If I do:
$ f up trunk
$ f merge search-technote -baseline root:search-technote -integrate
Then any future merge of annotation-enhancements will omit all changes
made 2017-09-23 because the merge record will show that they were
already merged due to being in the baseline of search-technote. To
correct, said future merge would have to explicitly use the -baseline
root:annotation-enhancements option.
Instead I could cherrypick each of the five check-ins comprising the
search-technote branch. This would avoid the aforementioned problem
but, in addition to being a pain in the butt to do, would also not put a
merge arrow in the graph. Of course, while said merge arrow is nice to
see, its existence is responsible for said problem.
A third approach would be to construct an alternative
annotation-enhancements branch made by cherrypicking each of the
search-technote check-ins, but this new branch would be rooted on trunk.
Then merge that branch and be done.
What's the best way to handle this situation?
While on this subject, there are also a number of other changes on the
annotation-enhancements branch that are unrelated to annotations. What
do we do with them?
At this point I'm inclined to just be patient and let
annotation-enhancements be merged first. That would solve everything.
Yet, my question remains. What is the best way to handle merging a
branch-to-a-branch back to trunk without immediately incorporating
unrelated branch changes while still allowing said changes to be
incorporated when the branch is later merged?
--
Andy Goth | <andrew.m.goth/at/gmail/dot/com>
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
