On Mon, June 16, 2008 11:33 am, MattyJ wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:30:38 -0700, James G. Sack (jim) > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> We normally make branches then integrate the main line *up* into them. >>> At release time we do a sort of 'symbolic' merge back down just to help >>> us indicate later that this thing was released. If we do the up merge >>> correctly there is never any conflict. It also helps future integration >>> efforts if we need to re-open that branch for some reason. Note that we >>> use a source control tool that tracks the integrations. >> >> The integrate-up operation is interesting. It sounds like that might >> offer the advantage of pre-testing prior to the merge-back-down, but I >> wonder if you ever find touchy situations where merge-up conflicts with >> the branch work. >> >>> .. >> >> Regards, >> ..jim > > We certainly do, but they are usually somewhat small/minimal. We try to do > the up merge every day on short projects. The more out of date it gets the > harder it is to merge, just like merging down. > > I think the overall pain is the same, but by periodically going up we > spread it out over time instead of having the 'big bang' merge at the end. > > > -Matt
I used to think that the pain/effort was a wash, but more recently I've felt that more frequent integration (and builds) reduces the chance of straying off into a swamp. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
