Georg Baum wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 15. Juni 2006 13:39 schrieb Peter Kümmel: > >> I think the only branches I have to care about is my own and trunk. >> And when a update someone other branch it is just niceness to the >> owner of this branch, because he is responsible for his branch. > > I agree 100%. My point however is that for all branches that are intended > to be merged back in the future there should always be exactly one "base > revision". This "base revision" marks the branchpoint: If you want to get > the real changes in the branch you have to compare it to the trunk at > the "base revision". All subsequent changes in trunk need to be merged to > the branch. > So if you want to be nice, merge everything up to the revision of your > changes. Otherwise, don't merge anything. >
Oh, I see, it would have been better to send patches to Abdel instead of checking in some stuff, when I don't wanna a complete merge by myself. >> I also think when I use some else branch and get problems then it is >> my problem, because as I understand it, in my branch I could do all >> what I want to, and don't have to care about the rest of the world, >> because of this it is a personal branch. (But maybe I'm wrong here.) > > That is my understanding, too. > >> And when someone plan to merge his branch with trunk then it is his >> job to update his branch, he could ask for help, but finally he >> is responsible for updating his branch. > > I agree too, but you will make this unnecessary difficult if you just > merge random changes. Now understand the problem you mentioned. :) Peter
