@Scott: Blame me. I asked Freeland to take this approach because we are still urgently trying to stabilize the trunk. We'll knowingly suffer the cost of a yuckier merge, but we definitely can't take any chance of additional breakages.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Scott Blum <sco...@google.com> wrote: > Freeland: I would strongly prefer that you literally svn merge c4298 and > c4299 from 1.6 into trunk. This will reduce the likelihood of later > conflicts. Also, please record they've already been merged in > 1.6/branch-info.txt. > > (in trunk) > svn merge -c4298 > https://google-web-toolkit.googlecode.com/svn/releases/1.6 > svn merge -c4299 > https://google-web-toolkit.googlecode.com/svn/releases/1.6 > svn commit -m "Cherry pick merging c4298,c4299 from releases/1.6 to trunk" > > Also, feel free to do the opposite to merge trunk-c4266 into 1.6. > > Emily: 1.6 needs to be writeable, we just need to be careful about merges > up. > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Emily Crutcher <e...@google.com> wrote: > >> LGTM. Should we freeze new commits to 1.6 until the rest of this shakes >> out? >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Freeland Abbott < >> gwt.team.fabb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> This is going to make our next 1.6 -> trunk merge mildly unpleasant, but >>> we need the 1.6 fixes at c4298 and c4299 'cause we're seeing them in the >>> trunk, but want minimal other changes until we're sure the current mess >>> around the confluence of event updates, hosted mode, war mode, AND oophm >>> have settled. (Can we institute a one-a-week or one-a-fortnight policy for >>> "big" merges? I trust tests, but I trust tests-and-shakeout-time more... >>> and Issac, here's a case where we *are* hiding something; I can't cite the >>> code that's gotten messy: it's not GWT's code, and it's not open source.) >>> Attached patch is meant to replicate 1.6 4298:4299, only, onto trunk. >>> >>> Note, in a similar messy-merge bit, that trunk c4266 also needs to >>> down-merge at some point. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> "There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand >> binary, and those who don't" >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
