"David B. Held" <dheld@codelogicconsulting.com> writes:
Martin Slater wrote:
[...] Can anyone comment on whether the branching has got better in svn? In particular (Quoting from http://www.gamesfromwithin.com/articles/0407/000026.html)
I don't think it's changed.
<quote> Here's the real killer blow for me: Subversion doesn't keep track of what merges have been applied to a file. That's up to you to keep track of somehow. That means that for every file (or set of files), you have to know up to what revision they've been integrated, and only pull in the changes from that revision on. </quote> This appears to be very limiting if you rely heavily on branching.
The SVN book, if I recall correctly, does mention this case. Their solution is to always comment merge transactions so that you can look at the history and identify them. Whether that is impractical for Boost or not, I can't say.
There's a script called svnmerge that handles this, if you just agree to use that instead of svn's built-in merging. The SVN people appear to be unwilling to implement smart merging directly in SVN until they can do it perfectly. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.user/22053 -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com