On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Paul Stovell <paul.stov...@readify.net> wrote: > > > Broken how?
[...] > In Mercurial it works different. You'd pull the 19 changes made to the trunk > to your local repository - they'd be replayed, one-by-one, against your > files. You'll still do the merges (leaving alone that Mercurial does a much > better job of merging than TFS out of the box), but since you're dealing > with one or two commits at a time, the merges are pretty simple, and if you > screw up, you don't have to start the whole thing again. Once you've > merged the trunk into your branch, you'd just push everything back to trunk. > Now all the changes are replayed against trunk, and trunk has all 32 > commits, with their history and dates exactly as you wrote them when you > checked them in during the week. It's a much more elegant model. Right. (Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I haven't used TFS and was more interested in how you consider Subversions merge broken; I understand that in the system you are describing it is 'different', I don't see any point in calling Subversion 'broken' though). > Paul -- silky http://dnoondt.wordpress.com/ "Every morning when I wake up, I experience an exquisite joy — the joy of being this signature."
