[cvsnt] Re: Branch merging - this seems wrong...

Tony Hoyle tony.hoyle at march-hare.com
Mon Jun 5 18:13:45 BST 2006

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 sales@march-hare.com.

Tony Eva wrote:
> If a developer is responsible for implementing a feature of some
> complexity, the coding/testing may take some time.  It would be
> reasonable for them to want to save their intermediate work into
> the repository from time to time, to guard against accidental loss
> of their working copy; so they would wish to perform occasional
> commits of unstable (or even non-functional) code.  They cannot
> commit this to a stable HEAD, and so will instead create a private

That's what you have the development branches for - developers should be 
working on that not the testing/stable branches (in fact in that scenario 
there would *never* be a commit directly to a stable branch).

Once you branch it's a separate line of development - branches are there 
precisely for when you do *not* want to track the commits on the trunk.

> I still believe that the CVSNT behaviour under the bi-directional
> merge scenario is counter-intuitive, and I struggle to see how
> it can be regarded as correct.

It's the only reasonable behaviour.  There's no automatic way to do this and 
absolutely never can be since it's an unsolvable problem.


More information about the cvsnt mailing list
Download the latest CVSNT, TortosieCVS, WinCVS etc. for Windows 8 etc.
@CVSNT on Twitter   CVSNT on Facebook