Re: commit to branch

[Derek R. Price]

Martin Entlicher wrote:

> Yes, thanks for the replies. I know, that I can do a merge on the branch
> with the HEAD. But I thought, that "cvs ci -r .." makes it simpler. I
> want to have two exactly the same revisions on the main trunk and on the
> branch. We have branched stable version of our software and when doing
> bug fixes that applies to the main trunk as well as to the branch, I
> have to merge it in the second working where the branch is checked out
> and resolve conflicts.
>
> Is it possible to add a support to force commit to a different branch
> without having to do merging and resolving conflicts ? Otherwise -r
> option to commit has not much sense IMO if it doesn't work in this case.
> It would speed up my work.

It doesn't work in order to prevent you from shooting yourself in the foot.
e.g.  If someone had checked in data on the branch and you didn't realize it
then this would overwrite those changes.  If you really want this behavior,
you might try '-f', but I don't think that works in this case either.  If this
was going to be hacked in, I think it would need another version of the
'force' option (but not '-f') for this particular case.

Derek

--
Derek Price                      CVS Solutions Architect ( http://CVSHome.org )
mailto:address@hidden         CollabNet ( http://collab.net )
--
99. Daddy, why doesn't this magnet pick up this floppy disk?