On Saturday 21 August 2010 11:48:23 Tony Mechelynck wrote:
> On 18/08/10 14:49, Xavier de Gaye wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:01 PM, James Vega wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:26:36PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar
wrote:
> >>> I think what would normally happen is to merge the
> >>> development branch back into the default branch. But just
> >>> like the problems you have now, I suspect that migth not
> >>> work very well.
> >>
> >> This would have worked just fine (as I had mentioned the
> >> first time it was brought up).
> >
> > This is not quite right. Attempting to merge vim72 into
> > default, or default into vim72 (as with the following two
> > sequences of commands) requires to manually solve many merge
> > conflicts.
> >
> > # vim72 into default
> > hg clone vim-master foobar
> > cd foobar
> > hg merge vim72
> >
> > # default into vim72
> > hg clone vim-master foobar
> > cd foobar
> > hg update vim72
> > hg merge default
> >
> >> The expected way to resolve the end of a
> >> branch's development cycle is to merge it back into its
> >> parent. This would have prevented the problem that Tony
> >> raised about the default branch now having two heads.
> >
> > Actually, having multiple heads in the same branch may be
> > considered as not a problem. When we have local changes,
> > after pulling from the official repository, in order to
> > merge the new official changesets into our own local
> > changes, we now have to run (where<highest revision number>
> > is given by 'hg heads' for example):
> >
> > hg merge -r<highest revision number>
> >
> > instead of previously with only one head:
> >
> > hg merge
> >
> >
> > Xavier
> Also, with multiple heads in the current branch, the "fetch"
> extension cannot be used: instead of one command
> hg fetch --switch-parent
> you have to run three
> hg pull -u
> hg merge -r ab3fc5de6b49
> hg commit -m 'merge for patchlevel 7.3.004'
> and the text for the latter two (or at least for the middle
> one) varies every time.
i've also got a [bash] script to merge -- i feel it overkill
to repeat the commit message as tony is doing here, but i've
coded it to allow me to specify a different message if i want
to -- i call it 'u3':
#!/bin/bash
# u3
cd ~/.build/hgvim/vim
dt=`date '+%Y-%b-%d %H:%M'`
echo $dt >> ../update.log
if [ $# -eq 0 ]; then
echo "about to hg commit" >> ../update.log
hg commit -m "$dt -- updates from bram" 2>&1 | tee -a
../update.log
else
echo "about to hg commit $@" >> ../update.log
hg commit "$@" 2>&1 | tee -a ../update.log
fi
dsh >> ../update.log
as you may guess, my first pull i call 'u', so for me a simple
update is as simple as u, u2 `cs`, u3
sc
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
