On Monday 12 March 2007 14:02, Chris Cannam wrote:
> On Monday 12 Mar 2007 12:41, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> > I'm about to merge this branch back in the trunk.
>
> OK, so what you did was:
>
>  - merge trunk to branch (instead of the other way around)
>  - realise your error

No, I was about to post about why I did that :

Since I had regularly kept the guitar branch up to date with changes from 
trunk, I figured I first should make it up to date again before merging it 
in. That went well. But then merging the branch back in failed apparently 
because it didn't like the fact that in the branch I had a 
gui/editors/guitar2 directory which I eventually renamed 
to 'gui/editors/guitar', replacing the old one.

>  - move trunk out of the way
>  - move branch to trunk
>
> That's really bad, it loses all the revision history on trunk since you
> split off the branch (I don't mean the changes themselves, I mean the
> metadata).

Yes. I recalled we had done that once, but you're right we lose metadata.

> Let me get this straight so we can fix it:
>
>  - revision 7673 was the initial creation of the branch
>  - revision 7950 was the erroneous merge from trunk to branch: was the
> entire merge committed in this single revision or do we need to know about
> any others?
>  - revision 7951 was moving the trunk out of the way
>  - revision 7952 was moving branch to trunk
>
> Right?

Right.

> So we need to:
>
>  - delete (or rename again) the new trunk
>  - move the moved-out-of-the-way trunk back to trunk

Right.

>  - merge revisions 7673:7949 of branch to trunk

No, that won't work (I tried). It will croak when reaching the 
gui/editor/guitar directory. However, doing it non-recursively so that 
particular directory is excluded, and then taking care of it manually should 
work.

> Yes?  I don't mind doing this (and testing it builds) myself, but it has to
> be done.

No, I'll do it right away (at least restoring the trunk).

> FWIW I didn't test the branch at all prior to the merge, I wasn't aware it
> was in a testable state.  It might have been wise to get some testing.

True, but since it's a completely seperate feature, I figured merging it in 
would be just as good.

-- 
Guillaume.
http://telegraph-road.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
[email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel

Reply via email to