On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Sergey Kurdakov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Paul, hi All > >>I have successfully done a few complex branch merges in svn. > > here is my idea ( keep patient on me, please ) > > to keep working things as is (Robert controls main branch), but then also > have experimental branch ( or branches ) with a volunteer maintainer from > community who takes care on keeping branch in sync with current Robert's > dev branch. > but as well allow in new branch more loose submit code procedure. > > This will create some double work, but still I think it could be estimated > that if Robert has time - he can merge much more code at once, but if he is > busy - no one waits for submission - so overall process will speed up. > > (but from what I see on the net "Git supports merging between branches much > better than Subversion") > > so these two versions might be using Git ( not svn as Paul mentions).
Sounds like feature branches to me which I think are generally evil and best to be avoided. You inevitably end up with various complete or incomplete features lying around and no easy way to share the changes without merging them up. If git has solved this problem, well maybe feature branches would be slightly more tolerable, but I still think they should be avoided unless necessary. -- Philip Lowman _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
