Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

Discussions > users > Re: Branch and Merge problem?

Project highlights: :. Download .: :. Support .: :. FAQ .: :. Translations .: :. Donate .: :. Report Bug .:

tortoisesvn
Discussion topic

Back to topic list

Re: Branch and Merge problem?

Author doomster
Full name Ulrich Eckhardt
Date 2010-03-01 04:27:52 PST
Message On Monday 01 March 2010, Edwin wrote:
> In the past time, I branch from trunk when I achieve milestone.
> Root /trunk
> /branch/1.1.1
> If it has bugs need to fix,I branch from 1.1.1 become
> Root /trunk
> /branch/1.1.1
> /branch/1.1.2
> If it has bugs need to fix,I branch from 1.1.2 become
> Root /trunk
> /branch/1.1.1
> /branch/1.1.2
> /branch/1.1.3
> When 1.1.3 fixing,1.1.1 has bugs to fixed, I need to fix 1.1.1 branch
> and merge 1.1.1 to 1.1.2 to 1.1.3 and finally merge back to trunk

This is rather unusual. Typically, a version triplet like 1.1.2 is the name of
a tag. It would be the third tag (0, 1, 2) which was created from the 1.1
branch.
Further, it looks like you have the branch folder underneath the trunk folder,
which is also unusual. The typical setup would have those at the same level.

> It spends much time to checkout each version, so now we change to
> another branch method. We use 1.1.X to replace 1.1.1 now become
>
> Root /trunk
> /branch/1.1.x revision 100
> If there is no bugs to fix, We tag 1.1.1 from 1.1.x
> Root /trunk
> /branch/1.1.x
> /tag/1.1.1 revision 101
> If it has bugs to fix, we fix on 1.1.x and then tag to 1.1.2 become
> Root /trunk
> /branch/1.1.x revision 120
> /tag/1.1.1
> /tag/1.1.2 revision 121
> So 1.1.x has latest fix in branch, we only need to merger 1.1.x and
> trunk

Yes, this more closely resembles the typical behaviour.

> But here comes a problem if 1.1.1 report bugs, we need to revert to
> 1.1.x revision 100 and commit become revision 122 to fix bugs may
> become revision 130. After revert we lost 1.1.2 revision 120’s fixed.
> We need to merge 120 and 130.

I don't see why you need to base your new bugfix release on exactly 1.1.1. I
would expect that only real bugfixes and not new features enter the 1.1.x
branch, i.e. that it remains relatively stable otherwise. So, if a user
reports an error in 1.1.1, the first thing I would do is to check if 1.1.2
doesn't already include a fix for it. Otherwise, just grab the 1.1.x branch,
apply a bugfix and afterwards tag version 1.1.3 which you then give to the
user.

> But I can’t merge successful now. It always report error tree conflict
> or md5-checksum not present error message. Am I wrong?

Actually, I just hope that I understood what you were doing. Your description
is a bit vague. In any case, I guess the problem is that you want to "revert
to 1.1.x revision 100", which I believe is simply wrong and/or unnecessary,
but maybe I just don't understand what it is you're trying to do.

Cheers!

Uli

--
ML: http://tortoisesvn.t​igris.org/list_etiqu​ette.html
FAQ: http://tortoisesvn.net/faq

Sator Laser GmbH, Fangdieckstraße 75a, 22547 Hamburg, Deutschland
Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932

********************​********************​********************​********************​******
Sator Laser GmbH, Fangdieckstraße 75a, 22547 Hamburg, Deutschland
Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932
********************​********************​********************​********************​******
           Visit our website at <http://www.satorlaser.de/>
********************​********************​********************​********************​******
Diese E-Mail einschließlich sämtlicher Anhänge ist nur für den Adressaten bestimmt und kann vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie den Absender umgehend, falls Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Empfänger sein sollten. Die E-Mail ist in diesem Fall zu löschen und darf weder gelesen, weitergeleitet, veröffentlicht oder anderweitig benutzt werden.
E-Mails können durch Dritte gelesen werden und Viren sowie nichtautorisierte Änderungen enthalten. Sator Laser GmbH ist für diese Folgen nicht verantwortlich.
********************​********************​********************​********************​******

« Previous message in topic | 2 of 19 | Next message in topic »

Messages

Show all messages in topic

Branch and Merge problem? Edwin <edwintai at gmail dot com> Edwin <edwintai at gmail dot com> 2010-03-01 00:37:24 PST
     Re: Branch and Merge problem? doomster Ulrich Eckhardt 2010-03-01 04:27:52 PST
         Re: Branch and Merge problem? Edwin <edwintai at gmail dot com> Edwin <edwintai at gmail dot com> 2010-03-01 18:14:10 PST
             Re: Branch and Merge problem? doomster Ulrich Eckhardt 2010-03-02 00:56:17 PST
                 Blame info unclear "Davison, Steve D" <steve dot d dot davison at intel dot com> "Davison, Steve D" <steve dot d dot davison at intel dot com> 2010-03-02 15:12:19 PST
                     Re: Blame info unclear steveking Stefan Küng 2010-03-03 09:59:01 PST
                         Re: Blame info unclear simonlarge Simon Large 2011-04-29 23:43:40 PDT
                             Re: Blame info unclear simonlarge Simon Large 2011-05-05 01:08:10 PDT
                                 Re: Blame info unclear steveking Stefan Küng 2011-05-06 09:19:12 PDT
                                     Re: Blame info unclear simonlarge Simon Large 2011-05-06 15:51:52 PDT
                                         Re: Blame info unclear steveking Stefan Küng 2011-05-06 22:53:13 PDT
                                             Re: Blame info unclear simonlarge Simon Large 2011-05-07 13:50:26 PDT
                                                 Re: Blame info unclear steveking Stefan Küng 2011-05-07 23:18:02 PDT
                                                     Re: Blame info unclear simonlarge Simon Large 2011-05-10 13:27:11 PDT
                 Re: Branch and Merge problem? Edwin <edwintai at gmail dot com> Edwin <edwintai at gmail dot com> 2010-03-02 19:51:29 PST
                     Re: Branch and Merge problem? doomster Ulrich Eckhardt 2010-03-03 04:14:32 PST
                         Re: Branch and Merge problem? Edwin <edwintai at gmail dot com> Edwin <edwintai at gmail dot com> 2010-03-03 08:55:10 PST
                             Re: Branch and Merge problem? doomster Ulrich Eckhardt 2010-03-04 03:56:45 PST
                                 Re: Branch and Merge problem? Edwin <edwintai at gmail dot com> Edwin <edwintai at gmail dot com> 2010-03-07 18:37:22 PST
Messages per page: