Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial? easy merging in svn, how about git/hg?
From: Frank Birbacher (bloodymir.crap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-01 17:28:48
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Am 01.04.12 12:09, schrieb Martin Geisler:
> With Git or Mercurial you do the merge of z' and z and then resolve
> the conflicts in favour of z'. There's no direct way to block a
> changeset from "flowing" into a given branch -- since changesets
> don't "flow" anywhere when you merge.
> With a simple scenario like the above it's not a big problem: you
> merge stable into dev after every one or two changes on stable. So
> you can do the merge, revert back to dev and then port the bugfix
> by hand:
This means the person to do the fix has to do a merge, too. This means
to educate everyone on the team to do proper merges, right? Ok,
merging should be part of daily work, especially with hg/git, but this
is not true for development teams in general.
> The advantage of doing a such a "dummy merge" where you throw away
> all changes from the other branch is that you record the merge in
> the history. So future three-way merges will not re-merge this
Correct. But it is a somewhat more complex workflow compared to a svn
blocking merge. So a disadvantage of git/hg compared to svn. A rather
strong one IMHO, but maybe not for boost development.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: keyserver x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk