[cvsnt] Re: Branch merging - this seems wrong...

[Gerhard Fiedler]

Tony Eva wrote:

> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>> I really think that both approaches (Tony Hoyle's comments about merge
>> points and our need to have temporary development branches that stay in
>> sync with the main development branch) converge in my suggestion to
>> only merge from A to B, and after the final merge from A to B, /copy/ B
>> to A.
> 
> Yes, that's right.  This is really just a matter of semantics, really,
> since the copy is just a special case of a merge where the merge target
> has not changed since the merge point. In the absence of a better
> solution it's the only way I can see to move forwards. 

Why does there need to be a "better" solution -- does the one given not
cover 100% of what you wanted?

> It's easy to see how this could be done with a temporary file:
> 
> (assume file.c is modified and committed on BranchB)
> cp file.c file.c.tmp
> cvs update -r BranchA file.c
> cp file.c.tmp file.c
> cvs commit file.c
> 
> ...but is there a neater way to do it without hacky temp files?

I don't see why you would need temp files. I gave an example how this can
be scripted as a branch copy operation, and Tony Hoyle gave an example how
this can be scripted as a merge operation. I think his solution is better.

Gerhard