Yang Paulex wrote: > Hi, All > > I'd like to start to look at classlib in Java 6 recently, before committing > anything, I wanted to discuss sync issue at first. There are several issues > here: > > 1. How to sync trunk(Java 5) and Java 6 branch > > Merge from trunk to Java 6 branch is necessary, because the Java 5 work is > still in progress, so most bug fixing work makes senses for Java 6 branch. > On the other hand, from Java 6 branch to trunk is not necessary. "svn > merge"
I agree, merging in one direction makes sense, and people should fix the bug in the 5.0 stream if it is relevant to both. > can help a lot here, some other decentralized version control system like > svk[1] may be more powerful, but I'd propose we start from basic tool here > to see if everything is OK. I have no objection to doing it manually a few times, with a view to automating it once it becomes repetitive. > I'd propose the steps below to merge it: > > cd <java 6 working copy> > svn merge -r > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/classlib/tags/latest-merge > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk@<REVISION> > <resolve conflict if there are some> > ant build > ant test > <verify everything is OK> > svn commit -m "merge from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to java 6 branch" > svn copy -r REVISION > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/classlib/tags/latest-merge > > > One SVN tag - latest-merge - needs to be created as a snapshot of trunk > merged last time, so that committer doesn't need to record the revision > number every time. > > 2. How frequently should the merge be performed? > > I'd like to say "as frequent as possible", but the effort is too much. > Maybe > daily merge is a reasonable trade-off. Daily sounds pretty frequent to me, again it depends upon how well automated the merge is, so we can try it and see. Of course, the advantage of a frequent merge is that there is less work to merge in, so little and often is probably a good idea. There will be some exceptions, like the incoming bulk contributions that may be more troublesome. > 3. Should this be automatically? > > Sure, although some kind of manually work is unavoidable when conflicts > happen. But I'd like to try it for several times until we are sure it's > safe to make it automatically. > I'm volunteer to perform the daily merge before that if no one objects. Thanks for volunteering to start this. Regards, Tim > Your comments are highly appreciated. > > [1] http://svk.bestpractical.com/view/HomePage, a decentralized > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Version_control_system>version control system > written in Perl based on SVN, with a design comparable BitKeeper and Git
