Sian January wrote:
I believe that in CVS when you make a branch there's nothing in it to
begin with, so if you check out code from the branch it looks the same
as code in head. Then if a change is made in a file in head and that
file hasn't been changed in the branch that change is reflected in the
branch. My understanding is that SVN is based on CVS so I think it
should work the same way.
Nope.
There is really no such thing as a branch or tag in SVN. It's just a
copy. I think it's the feature I miss most from CVS.
So my point was that if it's only a small
number of classes that are branched then integrating fixes shouldn't be
that problematic. Please feel free to correct me if any of those
assumptions are wrong.
Just thinking about J2ME, I can imagine that some source files are going
to be very different. For example there are no Java 5 features in J2ME,
so any generic classes will have to be almost completely different. My
concern is that trying to combine two quite different classes in the
same file is going be very difficult to read and understand.
Right. I don't know the first thing about ME. Maybe we should come up
w/ use cases based on Java 6 (as we're going to do it at some point) and
work from there.
geir
Thanks,
Sian
On 02/11/06, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Sian January wrote:
> I may be totally off track here, but how about just having two copies
> of all the files that differ? I don't believe it would be that many,
> and it would save us from having complicated source files or
having to
> use special tools or special IDE plug-ins. For me the value of
having
> clearly readable source code and being able to use an IDE out of
the box
> outweighs any extra effort there may be with this solution.
Because I think that still means we have separate branches, and thus
the
integration problem for fixes.
geir
>
> Regards,
>
> Sian
>
>
>
> On 31/10/06, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote:
>
> So we all agree that it's not an ideal solution.
>
> Can anyone think of anything else? No one said this was
going to be
> easy...
>
> geir
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sian January
>
> IBM Java Technology Centre, UK
--
Sian January
IBM Java Technology Centre, UK
