Re: [PROPOSAL] Backporting, conflicts and STATUS.

[kf...@collab.net]

Ben Reser <be...@reser.org> writes:
> Problem is when we run into conflicts.  This is happening more and more.
> So here's my solution:
> 
> a) When nominating a change to be backported the nominator *MUST*
> attempt a merge.
> 
> b) If the merge creates conflicts the nominator must resolve the
> conflicts and place a patch, say in a directory called STATUS_PATCHES.
> The patch will be named after the revisions it is merging.  A note will
> be included in the STATUS file mentioning that there is a conflict and
> a resolved patch exists in the STATUS_PATCHES dir.
>
> This will save whoever does the merging from feeling like they're
> guessing at the right thing to do.  It will ensure that we don't end up
> with merges that are just wrong...
> 
> If nobody disagrees with this I'll change HACKING to reference this.

+1.  Doesn't have to be the nominator who makes the patch, of course,
but *someone* needs to do it before it can be voted on.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org