[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: merge or branch?

From: Rachman Chavik
Subject: Re: merge or branch?
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 09:46:44 +0700

At 23:42 27/09/2001 +0000, you wrote:
Development continues down branchA, and a new directory, with new files,
gets added and committed on branchA.  This new directory is obviously not on
branchB, since it was created after branchA was created.

I would suggest that you perform the new additions from the mainline (HEAD)
whenever you add new directory and files.  To get these files down the branch,
you'll need to 'branch' these additions.

Why? Well, firstly, files added in the branch would be stored in the Attic
directory.  Secondly, I experienced some problems in merging these
type of files back to the HEAD branch.

Question: how does one get the new directory from branchA onto branchB?

2. branch the new files in the new directory using the branchB branch tag.
In other words: cvs tag -b branchB newfilename.

My thoughts are option #2 will create another branch, with the same name
(branchB) in cvs.  I believe that option 2 will give my colleague what he
wants, but I still believe two separate branches were created and merging
would have been the better way to go as it would have brought the files over
to the original branchB branch.

I prefer your option #2.  I think CVS does not differentiate between the two
'branch'. Your colleague will simply need to update his local work directory:

        cvs update -r branchB


Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free address at

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]