On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 23/07/07, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Any objections to this before I backport it for 2.x? It follows from
> > this thread:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/ywy6lt
>
> Got to it.
Will do.
Regarding svn commit messages.. Clearly the dev@ guys have a
prescribed formula for theirs but docs@ doesn't (as far as I can see).
When backporting, is it better to have e.g. "Backport r273654 to 2.2"
or the same message as the original commit?
It's a shame there isn't a cleaner way to apply patches to multiple
branches simultaneously. I guess if there were, it'd be more likely
that relevant changes would be kept in sync (for 2.0 in particular).
The simple solution would be to checkout at a higher level that
included trunk and the relevant branches but I'm not aware of a way to
do that which wouldn't also give all the tags and specialised
branches. Any clues?
Optimally you should include both the "Backport r..." and the original
log message, but I don't think anyone will object to having just one
or the other. Check out the script at
people.apache.org:~slive/svn.merge
which I believe sets that up by default. (I didn't write that script;
Someone on [EMAIL PROTECTED] did but I can't recall who.)
Merge tracking overall is a weak point of subversion at the moment,
but is being actively worked on for future versions.
I'm not really sure why you say that checking out at a higher level
would help anything. The way subversion works, each directory is
potentially independent. So it should matter whether you have
~/httpd/branches/2.2.x/ or just ~/httpd-2.2.x/.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
