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: > Gerhard Fiedler wrote: >> I really think that both approaches (Tony Hoyle's comments about merge >> points and our need to have temporary development branches that stay in >> sync with the main development branch) converge in my suggestion to >> only merge from A to B, and after the final merge from A to B, /copy/ B >> to A. > > Yes, that's right. This is really just a matter of semantics, really, > since the copy is just a special case of a merge where the merge target > has not changed since the merge point. In the absence of a better > solution it's the only way I can see to move forwards. Why does there need to be a "better" solution -- does the one given not cover 100% of what you wanted? > It's easy to see how this could be done with a temporary file: > > (assume file.c is modified and committed on BranchB) > cp file.c file.c.tmp > cvs update -r BranchA file.c > cp file.c.tmp file.c > cvs commit file.c > > ...but is there a neater way to do it without hacky temp files? I don't see why you would need temp files. I gave an example how this can be scripted as a branch copy operation, and Tony Hoyle gave an example how this can be scripted as a merge operation. I think his solution is better. Gerhard