Martin Vermeer wrote: >> I think that we should address the fundamental problem with all >> this in future work. At the start of the next development cycle, we >> should have a discussion of what one big feature we want in the >> next release. We should then allow only changes to HEAD related to >> this feature. (Maybe "allow only" is too strong, but something like >> that is needed I think.) >> >> Everything else should go into branches. If the branch dies, tough. >> >> I'd hope that, by restricting ourselves to only one big feature per >> release, maintaining the branches will be bearable. > > How is that with SVN? Easier?
Having done this with CVS, I don't think that it's that difficult to *maintain* a branch. Especially if the underlying master, HEAD repository isn't changing that much, as it wouldn't if we restricted ourselves to only one big feature per release. The pain comes when merging the changes in the branch back into HEAD. Frankly, I think that CVS is crap at doing that and find it easier to just use patch to apply the diff between the branch and HEAD. SVN may be better at all this; don't know. However, I suspect that there's a fundamental limitation in what can be done automatically. -- Angus
