Sounds like a plan to me. Everyone else??1
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Blog:      http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/


Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 14/08/2003 01:33:04 PM:

> Right. The problem with that is, when it comes time to update -j onto 
HEAD,
> that entire change will conflict if I remember rightly. I'm not exactly 
sure
> - it might not report a conflict because they are the same, but I have a
> feeling it does.
> 
> How we've tended to do it here is merge the branch down to HEAD first, 
merge
> the changes up to the branch, then tag the branch. That way, next update 
can
> only get the differences since that tag and it doesn't get confused.
> 
> Does that sound like a good thing to do to make the branch management
> easier? I imagine it will probably be around for a while, and may need 
to be
> used again for a 1.0 vs 1.1 thing.
> 
> - Brett
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 August 2003 1:28 PM
> > To: Maven Developers List
> > Subject: RE: cvs commit: 
> > maven/src/java/org/apache/maven/project Project.j ava
> > 
> > 
> > I merged from HEAD into the branch. Just manually using 
> > Eclipse. I figure 
> > that way the Branch will be closer to HEAD.
> > --
> > dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
> > Blog:      http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/
> > 
> > 
> > Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 14/08/2003 
> > 12:36:42 PM:
> > 
> > > Merged them down to HEAD? Manually, or with update -j?
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 August 2003 12:33 PM
> > > > To: Maven Developers List
> > > > Subject: RE: cvs commit: 
> > > > maven/src/java/org/apache/maven/project Project.j ava
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Yep,
> > > > 
> > > > I did some of that yesterday with the cactus plugin and docs.
> > > > --
> > > > dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
> > > > Blog:      http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > 

Reply via email to