2009/7/27 Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com>:
Doug Gregor wrote:
The Subversion upgrade on svn.boost.org is now complete, and everything is up and running with Subversion 1.6.3. Trac has also been upgraded to the latest version (0.11.5). If you notice any problems with the upgraded Trac or Subversion, please contact me directly.
What is the recommended merge procedure now?
Do we have anyone to make a recommendation? Hopefully, there's someone here who knows about subversion's merge tracking and can tell us what's what. Unfortunately, we already have a small problem with merging tracking. You and I have done full tree merges (using svnmerge, but that's irrelevant) so that the merge info is on the root directory. Other's have merged in subdirectories and their merge info is stored in those subdirectories. But the merge tracking only seems to take into account the merge info on the directory you're merging in. They obviously both have disadvantages. If we do full tree merges then the merge information will be all mixed up, making it more work to pick out the relevant merges, and as with svnmerge, I'm pretty sure that not everyone will want to use it, so more and more revisions will be incorrectly reported as unmerged. If we merge on subdirectories then we can all be responsible for our own sections of boost, but it'll make tracking shared files (failure markup, top level headers, detail headers etc.) trickier. And could end up being a real pain for anyone making changes across boost (such as the cmake people). And would continue the current practice of having gatekeepers for sections of boost who are often absent, which I don't think has been very healthy. Subversion's manual recommends full tree merges for release branches, but that's for a more traditional branch structure which we have problems with. I think storing the merge info on subdirectories might be the practical solution, although I don't like it myself. Daniel