From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2009-06-30 12:09:09
|
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Chris Cannam<ca...@al...> wrote: > However, I wouldn't actually do the merge in that direction if I were > you. I would merge straight back to the trunk. I should expand on this. I'm effectively assuming that you will merge back to trunk, then abandon the branch and continue working in trunk. Hence, you want to merge once, and minimally, and should therefore merge directly to trunk. There is a common working practice which involves taking a branch, then occasionally refreshing that branch up to date with trunk, while maintaining your own changes on it and occasionally pushing those changes back to trunk. That's very easy to do with, for example, Clearcase. It's possible with Subversion, but it takes more care (euphemism for "is a pain in the arse") because of Subversion's lack of proper branch management. If you wanted to do it that way, you would indeed want to merge from trunk to your branch as in the first command I gave in the last email. But I wouldn't advise it unless you have a very sound reason not to want to move your own development work to the trunk. In my opinion if your work is sufficiently advanced to merge to the trunk at all (which basically means "advanced enough to look like it's going to be a plausible approach" and not a great deal more) then it's also advanced enough to be developed directly on the trunk, given that trunk is pretty unstable anyway. Chris |