On 28.07.2009, at 01:38, Takeshi Abe wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:44:20 -0400, Gwynne Raskind <gwy...@darkrainfall.org
> wrote:
README.SVN-RULES says
1. All changes should first go to trunk and then get merged from
trunk
(aka MFH'ed) to all other relevant branches.
which I've been following so far.
That document is outdated. It's now (strongly) preferred that you
use one of the
various methods for multi-branch commits available in SVN, using
merge or a
sparse checkout.
Yes, I agree svn merge will work well.
IIRC, though, it involves a leading commit for trunk (usually, or
sometimes for
some branch whatever) and then merged ones for other branches.
Are such sereval commits OK?
I think so yes.
However I think we should standardize on one approach: svnmerge only
makes sense if everybody uses it.
Personally I favor the svnmerge approach if this also enables us to
more easily setup a temporary RM maintained branch ahead of a release
to prevent commit freeze periods.
For extensions we can of course leave it to the extension maintainer,
however there is no way to ensure that people are aware of what
merging approach is used in the given extension, so this is also not
really feasible.
regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
m...@pooteeweet.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
