Re: [boost] [polygon] 1.44 release?

Subject: Re: [boost] [polygon] 1.44 release?
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-22 03:14:25

On 22 June 2010 00:23, Simonson, Lucanus J <lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Thomas Klimpel wrote:
>>
>> Why did you "checkin" instead of "merge"?

We tend to be quite loose in our meaning of the word 'merge'. Although
this can be annoying at times.

>> You had asked for
>> permission to "merge", not for permission to do an "initial checkin".
>> I'm not subversion expert enough to know whether this will cause
>> trouble for the merge tracking or not, but I don't understand why you
>> preferred an "initial checkin" over the recommended "merge".
>
> Because I am used to using add and commit and less used to using merge.  I am not an SVN expert either.

This is understandable, especially since we might be migrating to
another version control system in the future. It's quite easy to add
the metadata a later date anyway.

We tried to get everyone to use svnmerge.py a while ago (before
subversion had merge tracking) and it didn't work out. I don't expect
we'll be able to get full use of subversion's built in merge tracking
either. So library maintainers treat their library's sub-directories
however they want. When I'm updating shared directories and files
(e.g. status), I try to leave the metadata in a reasonable state.

FWIW, FreeBSD's guide to merging is fairly relevant:

http://wiki.freebsd.org/SubversionPrimer/Merging

Looking at their rules for selecting the source and target, we
frequently break 1,2 and 3. Rules 4 to 9 don't apply to us.

Daniel