On 02/11/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sian January wrote: > I believe that in CVS when you make a branch there's nothing in it to > begin with, so if you check out code from the branch it looks the same > as code in head. Then if a change is made in a file in head and that > file hasn't been changed in the branch that change is reflected in the > branch. My understanding is that SVN is based on CVS so I think it > should work the same way. Nope. There is really no such thing as a branch or tag in SVN. It's just a copy. I think it's the feature I miss most from CVS.
That's very unfortunate. I had assumed that SVN was a superset of CVS as it's more recent, but obviously I was wrong :-(
So my point was that if it's only a small > number of classes that are branched then integrating fixes shouldn't be > that problematic. Please feel free to correct me if any of those > assumptions are wrong. > > Just thinking about J2ME, I can imagine that some source files are going > to be very different. For example there are no Java 5 features in J2ME, > so any generic classes will have to be almost completely different. My > concern is that trying to combine two quite different classes in the > same file is going be very difficult to read and understand. Right. I don't know the first thing about ME. Maybe we should come up w/ use cases based on Java 6 (as we're going to do it at some point) and work from there.
Yes - that seems to make much more sense. geir
> > Thanks, > > Sian > > > On 02/11/06, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > Sian January wrote: > > I may be totally off track here, but how about just having two copies > > of all the files that differ? I don't believe it would be that many, > > and it would save us from having complicated source files or > having to > > use special tools or special IDE plug-ins. For me the value of > having > > clearly readable source code and being able to use an IDE out of > the box > > outweighs any extra effort there may be with this solution. > > Because I think that still means we have separate branches, and thus > the > integration problem for fixes. > > geir > > > > > Regards, > > > > Sian > > > > > > > > On 31/10/06, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote: > > > > So we all agree that it's not an ideal solution. > > > > Can anyone think of anything else? No one said this was > going to be > > easy... > > > > geir > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sian January > > > > IBM Java Technology Centre, UK > > > > > -- > Sian January > > IBM Java Technology Centre, UK
-- Sian January IBM Java Technology Centre, UK
