On 4/12/2009, at 5:59 AM, David E Jones wrote:
Quite easily, you don't have to merge the entire thing in one hit. You can easily merge individual folder or files.On Dec 3, 2009, at 5:18 AM, Scott Gray wrote:On 4/12/2009, at 1:05 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:If you want to review these commits why not check them in the birt branch...there they are separated.I'm not so concerned about myself but more for others and in particular people looking at the commit history in the future. The integration and the examples are completely different subject matters are should be treated as such when committing to the trunk regardless of how they've been committed to the branch.How would one separate them when committing them to the trunk?
Typically merging a branch with the trunk involves a single commit in order to keep it simple. It doesn't have to be that way, but it nice to simply say branch rev X was merged into the trunk at trunk rev Y.
I guess I prefer having a couple of simpler commits over having a nice commit message. But then it isn't too much more trouble to say branch rev X was merged into the trunk at trunk rev Y and Z.
With that said, I don't want to get into a big debate over it, I only suggested it because I believe it is easy enough to do and would make for a better commit history. If you and Hans don't think it is of any value that's fine, I'm not going to push for it.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
