From: Tyler A. <ty...@bo...> - 2001-02-16 13:31:30
|
> * Probable bugfixes for attachment code > * Not sure if they work perfectly, but it's worth a try. > * We need to make 1.0 a branch and 1.1 be the main > * Because it's not set up that way, I'll need to patch that version too. Ok, I said that I'd patch the 1.1 branch, but I don't know if I can do it right. There have been changes in the 1.1 branch and changes in the 1.0 branch, so how would I go about making sure that I don't break more code or overwrite new code? This branching thing is WAY more complicated. I think we need a CVS person to make 1.1 the main and 1.0 a branch, then tell us how to make a change in 1.0 and have it cascade to 1.1. According to the docs, it's possible. -- Tyler Akins ty...@bo... |
From: Matt P. <ph...@co...> - 2001-02-16 14:04:03
|
TkCVS is your friend. But, it requires you to go theough file by file, which is quite annoying. I spend a part of everyday merging changes between cvs branches in our development server. We currently have 4 cvs branches to deal with and merge changes back and forth. There is no automated way to filter changes down between branches. -Matt On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 07:38:03AM -0600, Tyler Akins wrote: > > * Probable bugfixes for attachment code > > * Not sure if they work perfectly, but it's worth a try. > > * We need to make 1.0 a branch and 1.1 be the main > > * Because it's not set up that way, I'll need to patch that version too. > > Ok, I said that I'd patch the 1.1 branch, but I don't know if I can do it right. There have been changes in the 1.1 branch and changes in the 1.0 branch, so how would I go about making sure that I don't break more code or overwrite new code? > > This branching thing is WAY more complicated. I think we need a CVS person to make 1.1 the main and 1.0 a branch, then tell us how to make a change in 1.0 and have it cascade to 1.1. According to the docs, it's possible. > > -- > Tyler Akins ty...@bo... > > -- Matt Phillips System Administrator www.commnav.com |
From: Tyler A. <ty...@bo...> - 2001-02-16 14:09:18
|
> TkCVS is your friend. But, it requires you to go theough file by file, > which is quite annoying. I spend a part of everyday merging changes > between cvs branches in our development server. We currently have 4 cvs > branches to deal with and merge changes back and forth. There is no > automated way to filter changes down between branches. Why not? What can we do? Was it a "bad move" to branch? -- Tyler Akins ty...@bo... |
From: Matt P. <ph...@co...> - 2001-02-16 14:15:43
|
Did we set a tag at the branch point? -Matt On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:15:50AM -0600, Tyler Akins wrote: > > TkCVS is your friend. But, it requires you to go theough file by file, > > which is quite annoying. I spend a part of everyday merging changes > > between cvs branches in our development server. We currently have 4 cvs > > branches to deal with and merge changes back and forth. There is no > > automated way to filter changes down between branches. > > Why not? > > What can we do? Was it a "bad move" to branch? > > -- > Tyler Akins ty...@bo... > > -- Matt Phillips System Administrator www.commnav.com |
From: Paul J. T. <th...@ok...> - 2001-02-16 14:51:33
|
> Did we set a tag at the branch point? As far as I am aware, a "branch" is very very similar, if not identical, to a tag. If you notice, the command to check out a branch is the same as that to check out a version marked by a certain tag. >> What can we do? Was it a "bad move" to branch? Definately not. While it may be HARDER, it is definately the RIGHT way to go about things. When I go to convert: TRUNK => sm-1_0 and sm-1_1 => TRUNK It would be best if we could declare some sort of short term moritoriam (halt) on development so people don't lose any changes. Let's do this today. I will try to do the "big convert" around 1:30 CST. Any problems, let me know ASAP. -- Paul Joseph Thompson Oklahoma State University th...@ok... |
From: Matt P. <ph...@co...> - 2001-02-16 15:14:55
|
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:52:19AM -0600, Paul Joseph Thompson wrote: > > Did we set a tag at the branch point? > > As far as I am aware, a "branch" is very very similar, if not identical, to a > tag. If you notice, the command to check out a branch is the same as that to > check out a version marked by a certain tag. Branches are tags that move themself as things are checked in. Without a tag at the branch point it is very difficult to refer back to that point when merging changes between branches. The tag that was set with the branch moves to the most current revisions checked in to that branch. We also need to have a way to refer to the point when the branch happened. This is done by setting a tag at the same time you create the branch. If we had such a tag (mergepoint) we could do the following to merge changes between branches: From the MAIN(aka HEAD, aka TRUNK) development directory you could do a cvs up -j mergepoint -j sm-1_0 to bring in any changes that have been made in the stable branch into the dev branch (TRUNK). Then you re-set the branchpoint tag to the current state of the sm-1_0 branch so you can do this same thing again at a later point without causing conflicts with stuff you've already merged over. We just need to come up with standard naming convention so that changes can be merged over at any point by anyone. (As long as that person works out any conflicts that creep up.) Paul- I'm happy to help with the branching,tagging,merging, etc. This needs to be done right, or it will come back to bite us later. I think if we get a few heads in on it we're probably more likely to get it right. :-) > > >> What can we do? Was it a "bad move" to branch? > > Definately not. While it may be HARDER, it is definately the RIGHT way to go > about things. Absolutely! There really isn't any other way to do what we need to do. > When I go to convert: > TRUNK => sm-1_0 > and > sm-1_1 => TRUNK > > It would be best if we could declare some sort of short term moritoriam (halt) > on development so people don't lose any changes. Let's do this today. I will > try to do the "big convert" around 1:30 CST. Any problems, let me know ASAP. Probably unnecessary, but OK. -- Matt Phillips System Administrator www.commnav.com |
From: Paul J. T. <th...@ok...> - 2001-02-16 14:47:17
|
> I think we need a CVS person to make 1.1 the main and 1.0 a branch, > then tell us how to make a change in 1.0 and have it cascade to 1.1. That would be me. I have looked into this quite a bit, was just waiting to make sure Luke is in agreement. Things have been busy for me, these past couple of days, and I have not been able to get to a chat with him about it. Will SOOOOOOOONNNN!!! -- Paul Joseph Thompson Oklahoma State University th...@ok... |