Re: svn commit: r1182574 - /subversion/branches/showing-merge-info/BRANCH-README

[Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:37 PM,  <ju...@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: julianfoad
> Date: Wed Oct 12 20:37:29 2011
> New Revision: 1182574
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1182574&view=rev
> Log:
> On the 'showing-merge-info' branch: Add a BRANCH-README file describing the
> branch.
>
> Added:
>    subversion/branches/showing-merge-info/BRANCH-README
>
> Added: subversion/branches/showing-merge-info/BRANCH-README
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/showing-merge-info/BRANCH-README?rev=1182574&view=auto
> ==============================================================================
> --- subversion/branches/showing-merge-info/BRANCH-README (added)
> +++ subversion/branches/showing-merge-info/BRANCH-README Wed Oct 12 20:37:29 2011
> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
> +This 'showing-merge-info' branch is a feature branch to experiment with
> +improvements to the user interface to merging.  As a 'feature' branch, it
> +is maintained by periodic 'catch-up' (aka 'sync') merges from trunk, but
> +it is not currently expected to be reintegrated to trunk as a whole.
>
> +### Many commits on this branch are intentionally experimental, unfinished,
> +### undocumented, and in other ways not of the quality expected on trunk.

Hi Julian,

I'm curious, does the above BRANCH-README still accurately describe
your intent for this branch?  That is, is this a sandbox for you to
play around with merge ideas or do you envision much of it finding its
way back to trunk?

I don't want to spend much time reviewing if the former, but don't
want to suddenly face a lot of merge churn in a short period of time
if the latter.

Paul

Re: svn commit: r1182574 - /subversion/branches/showing-merge-info/BRANCH-README

[Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>]

--- On Fri, 11/11/11, Paul Burba wrote:
> Hi Julian,
> 
> I'm curious, does the above BRANCH-README still accurately describe
> your intent for this branch?  That is, is this a sandbox for you to
> play around with merge ideas or do you envision much of it
> finding its way back to trunk?
> 
> I don't want to spend much time reviewing if the former, but don't
> want to suddenly face a lot of merge churn in a short period of time
> if the latter.

Yes, I still intend the showing-merge-info branch as a private-ish
play area.  I'll introduce any changes that I decide to pursue by
sending patches against trunk or by creating a proper feature branch
with intent to reintegrate.

- Julian