From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S261747AbTCGTOw>; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:14:52 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S261746AbTCGTOu>; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:14:50 -0500
Received: from zeke.inet.com ([199.171.211.198]:11987 "EHLO zeke.inet.com")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S261744AbTCGTOs>;
	Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:14:48 -0500
Message-ID: <3E68F219.1000701@inet.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:25:13 -0600
From: Eli Carter <eli.carter@inet.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021003
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>
CC: Olivier Galibert <galibert@pobox.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BitBucket: GPL-ed KitBeeper clone
References: <200303020011.QAA13450@adam.yggdrasil.com> <20030301202617.A18142@kerberos.ncsl.nist.gov> <20030306161853.GD2781@zaurus.ucw.cz> <20030307121215.GA68353@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <20030307123237.GG18420@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20030307165413.GA78966@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <20030307190848.GB21023@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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 `-------------------------------------------------