Re: commit to branch

[Stephen Rasku]

You can also use the "-p" option.  To give the same version to a 
branch to what is on the trunk:

        cvs update -r branch
        cvs update -A -p file > file
        cvs ci
        
You have to repeat the middle step for each file you need to check in. 
 Unfortunately, if you have a lot of files changed, this can become 
quite cumbersome.

Derek Price wrote:

>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.
>