Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
"Vitaly Kouzin" <kouzin at infotecs.ru> wrote in message news:mailman.20.1155629718.3158.cvsnt at cvsnt.org... > Thanks, John. I've found the thread. From what I've read I've learned > there > are two possible solutions to the merge problem: > > (a) create bugfix branches so that they share the same branchpoint, and > > (b) for the first time merge the branches using a script, then rely upon > the new mergepoints. Vitaly, I think you have to carry on using the script, since the mergepoints will only get created when there are actual changes to a particular file. >> The script is very slow, since it issues two cvs commands per file, and >> also >> doesn't support files added to branch b1, but it does work. For us, the >> number of commits to b1 will be fairly small now that we have b2, and >> will >> decrease to zero over time, so I can cope with the deficiencies of this >> approach. > > The speed is not an issue for us :) By the way, I think taking into > account files added on a branch wouldn't be too difficult. One can > issue "cvs log" for the whole directory tree: the output should > contain information on all the files in the tree, not only on those on > the current branch. That's a good idea - my script reads the CVS/Entries files - but doing 'cvs log' per directory sounds better. My initial idea was to do 'cvs -n update -j b1' to get a list of files that required merging, but 'cvs -n update' doesn't work as I expected it to. If you want a copy of my script then let me know. cheers, John