On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 22:26 -0400, Tres Seaver wrote: > > OK. I had the impression that bzr's model was "branch > happy" (compared > to CVS / SVN), which would seem to me to make "forward porting" more > attractive.
bzr encourages many, lightweight branches. > For instance, in supportig Zope2, we often need to do a fix across > multiple supported releases: e.g., if somebody reported a security > issue today, we might end up releasing fixes for Zope 2.8 and 2.9, as > well as 2.10 (the currently released branch) and 2.11 (the > almost-ready-for-prime-time branch). I've even done one fix in this > configuration for 2.7 (because there are a large number of production > systems on 2.7, including a couple of my clients). Yup. > My experience with such fixes indicates that it is much easier to fix > the oldest stuff, and than forward port, compared to fixing the trunk, > and then backporting. That made the "daggy fixes" model seem quite > natural to me. My point is that you can do it in any direction you find most convenient. Once any two branches are diverged, there is no difference for a vcs - theres no 'forward' or 'backword' to the merge - its symmetrical. -Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
