Re: BitBucket: GPL-ed KitBeeper clone

[Eli Carter <eli.carter@inet.com>]

Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> 
>>Now if the development went that way:
>>
>>1.7  -> 1.7.1.1 (branching, i.e. copy)
>> v         v
>> v      1.7.1.2
>>1.8        v
>> v   -> 1.7.1.3 (merge)
>>1.9        v
>> v         v
>>1.10       v
>> v   -> 1.7.1.4 (merge)
>> v         v
>> v      1.7.1.5
>> v         v
>>1.11 <-         (merge)
>>
>>Pretty much standard, a developper created a new branch, made some
>>changes in it, synced with mainline, synced with mailine again a
>>little later, made some new changes and finally folded the branch back
>>in the mainline.  Let's admit the developper changes don't conflict by
>>themselves with the mainline changes.
>>
>>CVS, for all the merges, is going to pick 1.7 as the reference.  The
>>first time, for 1.7.1.3, it's going to work correctly.  It will fuse
>>the 1.7->1.8 patch with the 1.7.1.1->1.7.1.2 patch and apply the
>>result to 1.7 to get 1.7.1.3.  The two patches have no reason to
>>overlap.  1.7.1.2->1.7.1.3 will essentially be identical to
>>1.7->1.8,
> 
> 
> So, basically, if branch was killed and recreated after each merge
> from mainline, problem would be solved, right?
> 
> 							Pavel

You would lose the history that branch gave you.
Or do you mean create a new branch (with a new name) at the point where 
the old branch was merged, and no longer use the old branch for commits?

Eli
--------------------. "If it ain't broke now,
Eli Carter           \                  it will be soon." -- crypto-gram
eli.carter(a)inet.com `-------------------------------------------------