[fossil-users] Merging multi-level-branches
Hello I don't know, if the following behaviour is a feature, a bug or if this solution would be a feature request. I like to work with branches. Asuming: 1. i have a trunk development, using version 1, 2, 3 2. i started a branch name b1 at 1 and committed some changes 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3 3. i started a second branch named b2 on the branch 1 at 1.1.2 using versions 1.1.2.1.1, 1.1.2.1.2 The above version numbers are given in CVS notation. If i decide to merge branch 2 to main trunk, i would expect, that merge b2 apllies patches 1.1.2.1.1, 1.1.2.1.2. But fossil merges the complete patch sequence starting from 1.1.1 to 1.1.2.1.2 to my trunk version 3. Fossil reads the commandline argument b2 and searches for the newest version with this tag and apllies all patches from the common base 1.1 until the found branch version. My expactation: Only diffs occuring on the branch should be apllied. I see only one chance: Applying all patches from the branch p2 using --cherrypick. Is this intended? best regards Wolfgang ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Merging multi-level-branches
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Wolfgang wrote: > Hello > > I don't know, if the following behaviour is a feature, a bug or if this > solution > would be a feature request. > > I like to work with branches. Asuming: > > 1. i have a trunk development, using version 1, 2, 3 > 2. i started a branch name b1 at 1 and committed some changes 1.1.1, 1.1.2, > 1.1.3 > 3. i started a second branch named b2 on the branch 1 at 1.1.2 using > versions > 1.1.2.1.1, 1.1.2.1.2 > > The above version numbers are given in CVS notation. > > If i decide to merge branch 2 to main trunk, i would expect, that merge b2 > apllies patches 1.1.2.1.1, 1.1.2.1.2. But fossil merges the complete patch > sequence starting from 1.1.1 to 1.1.2.1.2 to my trunk version 3. > > Fossil reads the commandline argument b2 and searches for the newest > version > with this tag and apllies all patches from the common base 1.1 until the > found > branch version. > > My expactation: > Only diffs occuring on the branch should be apllied. > > I see only one chance: > Applying all patches from the branch p2 using --cherrypick. > > Is this intended? > The behavior is as intended. > > best regards > Wolfgang > > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Merging multi-level-branches
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:18:20PM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: > On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Wolfgang wrote: > > > Hello > > > > I don't know, if the following behaviour is a feature, a bug or if this > > solution > > would be a feature request. > > > > I like to work with branches. Asuming: > > > > 1. i have a trunk development, using version 1, 2, 3 > > 2. i started a branch name b1 at 1 and committed some changes 1.1.1, 1.1.2, > > 1.1.3 > > 3. i started a second branch named b2 on the branch 1 at 1.1.2 using > > versions > > 1.1.2.1.1, 1.1.2.1.2 > > > > The above version numbers are given in CVS notation. > > > > If i decide to merge branch 2 to main trunk, i would expect, that merge b2 > > apllies patches 1.1.2.1.1, 1.1.2.1.2. But fossil merges the complete patch > > sequence starting from 1.1.1 to 1.1.2.1.2 to my trunk version 3. > > > > Fossil reads the commandline argument b2 and searches for the newest > > version > > with this tag and apllies all patches from the common base 1.1 until the > > found > > branch version. > > > > My expactation: > > Only diffs occuring on the branch should be apllied. > > > > I see only one chance: > > Applying all patches from the branch p2 using --cherrypick. > > > > Is this intended? > > > > The behavior is as intended. I like this behaviour intended. I just had the case of having a branch from trunk, and it had some changes I wanted to merge in to trunk, but I did not want all of them. So I can create a subbranch of 'branch', prepare it as I want it merged into trunk, and from trunk I can do: fossil merge subbranch But I wonder if a later merge in trunk like this will work fine: fossil merge branch Regards, Lluís. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Merging multi-level-branches
2010/10/19 Lluís Batlle i Rossell > > I like this behaviour intended. > I just had the case of having a branch from trunk, and it had some changes > I > wanted to merge in to trunk, but I did not want all of them. So I can > create a > subbranch of 'branch', prepare it as I want it merged into trunk, and from > trunk > I can do: > fossil merge subbranch > > But I wonder if a later merge in trunk like this will work fine: > fossil merge branch > Yes. You can "fossil merge branch" as often as you like and it will continue to work. Unlike another popular VCS, Fossil keeps track of past merges and does not duplicate them causing merge conflicts. > > Regards, > Lluís. > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Merging multi-level-branches
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 08:57:27AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: > 2010/10/19 Lluís Batlle i Rossell > > > > > I like this behaviour intended. > > I just had the case of having a branch from trunk, and it had some changes > > I > > wanted to merge in to trunk, but I did not want all of them. So I can > > create a > > subbranch of 'branch', prepare it as I want it merged into trunk, and from > > trunk > > I can do: > > fossil merge subbranch > > > > But I wonder if a later merge in trunk like this will work fine: > > fossil merge branch > > > > Yes. You can "fossil merge branch" as often as you like and it will continue > to work. Unlike another popular VCS, Fossil keeps track of past merges and > does not duplicate them causing merge conflicts. I even tried in branch 'fossil update trunk' after the merge from subbranch to trunk, and all went perfect. I am very positively impressed. Thank you! ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
