On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 May 2012 07:21, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
On 4/30/2012 10:28 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
Merging from the root is Boost's recommended practice, and is not painful at all if you're using a recent version of svn. Prefer to do it that way.
I meant it's a pain to have to keep track of exactly which changesets you want to merge, with a better system the version control system should keep track of that for you. But part of the reason it's a pain is that we can't use 'svn mergeinfo' from the root to see what hasn't been merged, which would be less of a problem if everyone did merge at the root.
Hmmm..what you're saying *looks* to be in conflict with [1] (which, incidently, I just modified as the TortoiseSVN instructions were outdated). Can you (or Daniel, or anyone) clarify/comment?
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/ImprovingPractices#Mergingchangesfromd...
Hrm. Either best practice has changed while I was sleeping (possible), or else whoever wrote this didn't know about Boost's merge policy.
Most of the wiki's content hasn't been discussed or reviewed in any way. It's just someone's opinion (as are posts like this). I don't think we have a generally accepted 'best practice' for merging.
The proscription against merging individual files and subdirectories comes from long ago ... possibly a time when svn merge tracking was very rudimentary. It's possible that it doesn't make a difference now. Does anybody know?
It still makes a difference. Having a lot of merge metadata makes merging slower and more complicated. It also makes mergeinfo slower and less accurate in parent directories It would be great if we could get subversion to tell us exactly which changesets haven't been merged to release, but we can't because the metadata is too messy. Since it's quite likely we'll switch from subversion in the near future, I don't think it's worth the effort to clean it up. So my compromise is to keep the metadata in a good condition for my individual parts of the tree.
Okay, I will try to merge from root in the future. It sounds like I shouldn't bend over backwards to get it working, though (I don't know what could go wrong...), as long as I can still merge fine at a more local level. - Jeff