Le 20/07/2011 11:52, Alex Fiestas a écrit : > Hi there > > Last few days I have been patching some pieces of our workspace here and > there, the first set of patches I did them directly into master which if > I remember correctly was against the policy. > So, the second round of fixes I tried to do it the right way, which is: > 1-Create the patch while using 4.7 (optional I guess) > 2-Test the patch in 4.7 > 3-Commit the patch in 4.7 > 4-Checkout master branch > 5-Merge 4.7 into master > > In theory, this workflow should work (I like it dcvs-wise) but the > reality for me was: > 1-A lot of conlicts > 2-Conlicts on software I don't know about > 3-Conflicts in .desktop translations > 4-Something that should be almost instant, is not <at all> > > The result of a merge of 4.7 in master can be observed in the attached > screenshot. > > So, at this point I'm wondering if the policy is bad or (and this option > is the more plausible) I don't know how to use the tool.
What I have been doing recently to avoid cherry-picking is to create my fixes in a separate work branch, then merge the branch in both 4.7 and master branches. This way the commits do not have different commit ids. Aurélien