You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by Benson Margulies <bi...@basistech.com> on 2007/09/29 20:43:10 UTC
stupid question about branches
Howcome we don't have two visible branches, one for 2.0.3 and one for
2.1, right now?
Re: stupid question about branches
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Monday 01 October 2007, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Ok, here's a different suggestions. Snapshots off of just 2.0.3 or
> both?
Probably both once there are changes on 2.0.3 to warrant it.
Dan
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan.diephouse@mulesource.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:38 PM
> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: stupid question about branches
>
>
>
> I've not tried it either. I agree though that circular merges would be
> confusing though. Benson, I'd recommend making your changes on trunk/
> and then we can just run svnmerge later on the 2.0.x branch.
>
> - Dan
>
> Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> Benson,
>
> We do have a 2.0.x branch:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cxf/branches/2.0.x-fixes/
>
> svnmerge.py is setup to merge from trunk to that branch. I just need
> to
> take some time to do it. I'd prefer not to have "circular" merges
> (merges from trunk to it as well as merges from it to trunk). I'm
> not sure how well svnmerge.py handles the circular merges. Anyone
> have experience with that?
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Sunday 30 September 2007, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>
> Sure. And Dan K is manually planning to grab commits for 2.0.3.
> If
> there were a branch already, (once my karma works) I'd be happy
> to
> make some fixes in the 2.0.3 branch and then merge them in the
> forward
> direction.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bozhong Lin [mailto:blin@iona.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:17 PM
> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: stupid question about branches
>
> trunk is essentially a branch for 2.1...
>
> Regards,
> Bo
>
> Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>
> Howcome we don't have two visible branches, one
> for 2.0.3 and one
>
>
> for
>
>
>
> 2.1, right now?
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
RE: stupid question about branches
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@basistech.com>.
Ok, here's a different suggestions. Snapshots off of just 2.0.3 or both?
________________________________
From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan.diephouse@mulesource.com]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:38 PM
To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: stupid question about branches
I've not tried it either. I agree though that circular merges would be
confusing though. Benson, I'd recommend making your changes on trunk/
and then we can just run svnmerge later on the 2.0.x branch.
- Dan
Daniel Kulp wrote:
Benson,
We do have a 2.0.x branch:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cxf/branches/2.0.x-fixes/
svnmerge.py is setup to merge from trunk to that branch. I just need
to
take some time to do it. I'd prefer not to have "circular" merges
(merges from trunk to it as well as merges from it to trunk). I'm not
sure how well svnmerge.py handles the circular merges. Anyone have
experience with that?
Dan
On Sunday 30 September 2007, Benson Margulies wrote:
Sure. And Dan K is manually planning to grab commits for 2.0.3.
If
there were a branch already, (once my karma works) I'd be happy
to
make some fixes in the 2.0.3 branch and then merge them in the
forward
direction.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bozhong Lin [mailto:blin@iona.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:17 PM
To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: stupid question about branches
trunk is essentially a branch for 2.1...
Regards,
Bo
Benson Margulies wrote:
Howcome we don't have two visible branches, one
for 2.0.3 and one
for
2.1, right now?
--
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: stupid question about branches
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
Benson,
We do have a 2.0.x branch:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cxf/branches/2.0.x-fixes/
svnmerge.py is setup to merge from trunk to that branch. I just need to
take some time to do it. I'd prefer not to have "circular" merges
(merges from trunk to it as well as merges from it to trunk). I'm not
sure how well svnmerge.py handles the circular merges. Anyone have
experience with that?
Dan
On Sunday 30 September 2007, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Sure. And Dan K is manually planning to grab commits for 2.0.3. If
> there were a branch already, (once my karma works) I'd be happy to
> make some fixes in the 2.0.3 branch and then merge them in the forward
> direction.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bozhong Lin [mailto:blin@iona.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:17 PM
> > To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: stupid question about branches
> >
> > trunk is essentially a branch for 2.1...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bo
> >
> > Benson Margulies wrote:
> > > Howcome we don't have two visible branches, one for 2.0.3 and one
>
> for
>
> > > 2.1, right now?
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
RE: stupid question about branches
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@basistech.com>.
Sure. And Dan K is manually planning to grab commits for 2.0.3. If there
were a branch already, (once my karma works) I'd be happy to make some
fixes in the 2.0.3 branch and then merge them in the forward direction.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bozhong Lin [mailto:blin@iona.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:17 PM
> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: stupid question about branches
>
> trunk is essentially a branch for 2.1...
>
> Regards,
> Bo
>
> Benson Margulies wrote:
> > Howcome we don't have two visible branches, one for 2.0.3 and one
for
> > 2.1, right now?
> >
> >
> >
Re: stupid question about branches
Posted by Bozhong Lin <bl...@iona.com>.
trunk is essentially a branch for 2.1...
Regards,
Bo
Benson Margulies wrote:
> Howcome we don't have two visible branches, one for 2.0.3 and one for
> 2.1, right now?
>
>
>