Re: Maintaining branches...

[Paul Sander]

>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden

>On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 10:15:16PM -0700, Paul Sander wrote:
>> Your first case is really two merges, one requiring the user to supply
>> version 1.1.0.3 as the common contributor.  The other is a single join
>> with version 1.1.0.2.
>> 
>> You could also do this:
>> 
>> version 1.5 = 1.4 + ( 1.1.0.5 - 1.1 )
>> 
>> And then resolve the inevitable conflicts resulting from the first bug-fix
>> merge.  This is how CVS currently works.


>Two points:  If I do that manually, I can easily avoid having to deal with
>a conflict by doing it in multiple stages.

>When I want to merge all the things in, I merge in the diff from 1.1 ->
>1.1.0.2.  Then I apply the diff from 1.1.0.3 -> current.  Because I know
>I've already applied 1.1.0.3.

>If you're going to automate this, this is how I would expect the automation
>to work.

If I understand you correctly, what you want is this:

Merge 1:
specification - version 1.4 = 1.3 + ( 1.1.0.3 - 1.1.0.2 )
result - version 1.4 = 1.3 + ( 1.1.0.3 - 1.1.0.2 )

Merge 2:
specification - version 1.5 = 1.4 + ( 1.1.0.5 - 1.1 )
result - version 1.5 = 1.4 + ( 1.1.0.5 - 1.1.0.3 ) + ( 1.1.0.2 - 1.1 )

Is this correct?

What about the case where the first merge is a partial, where the result
(version 1.5) contains only a subset of the deltas between 1.1.0.3 and
1.1.0.2?  In this case, applying all of (1.1.0.5 - 1.1) to 1.4 and resolving
conflicts seems like the right thing to do.

>--- End of forwarded message from address@hidden