Hi!
I have a few questions regarding a particular subversion usage scenario. We
are two teams, each working on more or less unrelated portions of a common code
base. To isolate each team from stability issues introduced due to the work of
the other team, we consider creating a separate branch for each team. Whenever
one team considers its work to be stable (after a few weeks), it is
reintegrated into the trunk, from where it can be picked up by the other team.
However, there are also cases when changes need to be synchronized more quickly
(e.g., critical bug fixes). This could be done by merging individual revisions
of one branch back into the trunk, but since this workflow is different from
the proposals discussed in
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.7/svn.branchmerge.commonpatterns.html, I'm not
sure about its consequences. So my questions are:
*) Will it cause troubles (in terms of merge conflicts, performance, etc.) to
perform bi-directional merging between the trunk and a branch created from the
trunk (i.e., alternately merge changes from the trunk into the branch and from
the branch into the trunk)?
*) Will it cause troubles to perform a reintegration of the branch after some
of the changes in the branch have already been merged into the trunk
individually?
*) Is there a different best-practice recommendation to achieve the isolation
of two development teams as sketched above?
Thanks & kind regards,
Markus
Dipl.- Ing. Dr. techn. Markus Grabner
Research & Development Team
phone +43 (0) 316 4000 761
fax +43 (0) 316 4000 711
www.alicona.com
Alicona Imaging GmbH - Optical 3D measurement and inspection - Teslastraße 8 -
8074 Grambach/Graz - Austria
Registered office: Grambach, FN 208097a, Landesgericht für ZRS Graz / This
e-mail may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you receive
this email in error or are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy,
disseminate or distribute it. Do not open any attachments, delete it
immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you
have done so.
