This is very much what I had in mind. The downside is that the committer is saddled with a recurring task. -Greg
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have been able to manage some long-lived branches in Zookeeper and Mahout > using git. > > The key was to rebase the branch frequently. That allowed me to spread the > complexity of the ultimate merge out into a lot of small decisions, each of > which was pretty simple and could be tracked back to a small change in > trunk. > > The branch in Zookeeper was a particularly interesting case since it > involved changes to dozens of files with lots of commits from multiple > people on the branch and even more changes on the trunk while the branch > lasted. The branch was not even a very short-term thing ... from first > commit to final merge was 6-7 months. > > The key here was to not get too far behind. During active periods of > development, I rebased almost every day. > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Luc Maisonobe <luc.maison...@free.fr > >wrote: > > > As for the cost of branching, it is almost trivial. svn copy > >> https://fromurl > >> https://tourl > >> > > > > The cost of branching is trivial. The cost of merging back is huge. >
