You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by kf...@collab.net on 2004/08/11 17:48:47 UTC
Re: svn commit: r10592 - branches/1.1.x/subversion/po
"Peter N. Lundblad" <pe...@famlundblad.se> writes:
> I might be missing something, but don't we normally commit changes to the
> trunk and then merge them to the branch? Is there any exception to this
> rule?
Almost no exceptions, right.
Now, this might have been a merge where niqueco just forgot to say the
source revision of the merge... ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r10592 - branches/1.1.x/subversion/po
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> writes:
> > Ouch, I think that's a really poor policy. Changes should go to the
> > trunk first, then to the branch. -- justin
>
> Agreed. The rest of Subversion follows the trunk then branch policy,
> there's no reason this should be any different.
Just chiming in for good measure: 100% agreed.
Trunk is the source of all goodness, branches are recipients of
goodness. Thus it is and thus it ever shall be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r10592 - branches/1.1.x/subversion/po
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Wednesday, August 11, 2004 8:09 PM -0300 Nicolás Lichtmaier
> <ni...@reloco.com.ar> wrote:
>
>> Er.... sorry. I've just created my own .po handling policy for merges. I
>> wasn't following the discussion in the list very closely. What I had
>> thought
>> on doing is just to concentrate on the branch, and when subversion is
>> released, forward port the changes to the trunk. I think this much more
>> simpler, and the result is the same. What do you think?
>
>
> Ouch, I think that's a really poor policy. Changes should go to the
> trunk first, then to the branch. -- justin
Agreed. The rest of Subversion follows the trunk then branch policy,
there's no reason this should be any different.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r10592 - branches/1.1.x/subversion/po
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Wednesday, August 11, 2004 8:09 PM -0300 Nicolás Lichtmaier
<ni...@reloco.com.ar> wrote:
> Er.... sorry. I've just created my own .po handling policy for merges. I
> wasn't following the discussion in the list very closely. What I had thought
> on doing is just to concentrate on the branch, and when subversion is
> released, forward port the changes to the trunk. I think this much more
> simpler, and the result is the same. What do you think?
Ouch, I think that's a really poor policy. Changes should go to the trunk
first, then to the branch. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r10592 - branches/1.1.x/subversion/po
Posted by Nicolás Lichtmaier <ni...@reloco.com.ar>.
>>>I might be missing something, but don't we normally commit changes to the
>>>trunk and then merge them to the branch? Is there any exception to this
>>>rule?
>>>
>>>
>>Almost no exceptions, right.
>>
>>Now, this might have been a merge where niqueco just forgot to say the
>>source revision of the merge... ?
>>
>>
>Yes. Didn't think of that. Do you fix the message if that's the case,
>Nicholás?
>
>
Er.... sorry. I've just created my own .po handling policy for merges. I
wasn't following the discussion in the list very closely. What I had
thought on doing is just to concentrate on the branch, and when
subversion is released, forward port the changes to the trunk. I think
this much more simpler, and the result is the same. What do you think?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r10592 - branches/1.1.x/subversion/po
Posted by "Peter N. Lundblad" <pe...@famlundblad.se>.
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> "Peter N. Lundblad" <pe...@famlundblad.se> writes:
> > I might be missing something, but don't we normally commit changes to the
> > trunk and then merge them to the branch? Is there any exception to this
> > rule?
>
> Almost no exceptions, right.
>
> Now, this might have been a merge where niqueco just forgot to say the
> source revision of the merge... ?
>
Yes. Didn't think of that. Do you fix the message if that's the case,
Nicholás?
Thanks,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org