@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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to