On 4 Dec 2002, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, John Levon wrote: > | > | [...] > | > With all that administration, I'm even less inclined to do so then. > | > > | > CVS is worse at handling conflicts in such cases than patch is > | > | But at least CVS allows others to keep up to date with your work and > | fiddle along with you. All you need to do is warn everyone when > | you're rolling forward to a new branch -- if you find a suitable name > | like BRANCH_CHANGE_TRACKER_x where x is a counter (1,2,3..) for the > | current branch it shouldn't be hard for people to work out the latest > | branch. > > I cannot believe that merging is that hard. The Gcc folks do this all > the time, and that project is a tiny bit larger than LyX...
GDB is a fairly large project also and they tend to start a new branch and roll their work forward that way rather than attempt to keep one branch going for long periods with multiple merges of the trunk into branch. Does GCC really have long living branches with multiple merges from the trunk into the branch? If so, they must know something a lot of others don't. It is supposed to be possible but if you read the blurb for that recently posted cvs replacement one of the things they claim is that they can do this but cvs can't. Allan. (ARRae)
