qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Stitcher <astitc...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Qpid M2 Branching / C++ 0.9 Merging
Date Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:59:02 GMT
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 12:00 -0500, Alan Conway wrote:
> Robert Godfrey wrote:
> > I don't think any work should be getting held up... We have two parrallel
> > streams, the fact that currently one is "trunk" and the other is 
> > "0-9", and
> > we want to move to the situation where one is "M2" and the other is 
> > "trunk"
> > doesn't fundamentally change the dynamics of the problem (we could 
> > have two
> > streams called apple and banana and the problems would be the same - 
> > and it
> > would probably be less contentious :-) ).
> You're right. I can do the C++ reorg on the C++ 0-9 branch instead and 
> stop worrying people about a branch called "M2".

In theory this seems correct - that is we shouldn't hold up the C++
reorg for the 0-9 merge. But the main reason we haven't done it yet is
that svn tracks renames (and moving stuff around) extremely poorly and,
this to my understanding, could make the merge extremely painful if done
afterwards.

Does anyone actually have experience with doing the wholesale renaming
and moving Alan is talking about on a svn branch.

If not for this reasoning there is a lot of clean up work that we would
already have done on the branch.

Andrew



Mime
View raw message