Hi, Daniel (ajax) Diniz <ajaksu <at> gmail.com> writes: > > But the real point is that, regardless of underlying VCS, there is a > choice between "having all core developers know by heart the right > switches and order of steps to correctly checkout/update ->( branch > locally) -> fix -> diff -> commit -> merge -> solve conflicts" and > "offering a little, well-documented script that takes care of the > switches and sequence of steps". Well, it seems to me that most of these steps are separated by manual intervention (e.g. compile and run the test suite to check that everything works smoothly), so there's no real point in making a script out of them. The real issues with svnmerge are its occasional bugs or failures (it forgot some changesets when merging in the io-c branch!), its slowness, and its limitations (which are really inherent to the SVN model: e.g., if someone commits to the branch you have just started doing an svnmerge to, you have to revert everything and start over with the latest updates). Regards Antoine.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4