[fdo-internals] SVN Repository Merge Issues

[Greg Boone]

In response to your question, "At this point in time, how different is
trunk and 3.2.x", the branch and trunk are mostly identical but not
totally identical. Our decision with branching 3.2.x was that all
changes submitted into the 3.2.x branch should also be submitted into
the trunk. I will have to verify that this is the case. I will look into
this and get back to you. 

I know of a couple of submissions that went into the trunk that did not
go into the 3.2.x branch. There were several by Brent R. that come
immediately to mind (See attached) One significant difference is that
Brent dropped a change in the trunk of FDO that changed binary
compatibility between the branch and trunk.   

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bray
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 1:06 AM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Cc: Shawn Barnes
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] SVN Repository Merge Issues

Hmm,

No responses. So everyone is ok with this, everyone is dumbfounded and 
shocked into silence, or?

Any better ideas for how to deal with this merge? We need to make a 
decision and move forward.

At this point in time, how different is trunk and 3.2.x?

Bob


Robert Bray wrote:
> All,
>
> Shawn has been tinkering with this and has been able to successfully 
> merge trunk. However it looks like we will not be able to merge the 
> branches. You can see a preview of the merged repository here: 
> http://test.osgeo.net/trac/fdo-merged/browser/.
>
> Merging in SVN alters the revision numbers, which is why the branch 
> merges do not work. Here is the summary from Shawn: "I've searched and

> spoken with a few people on subversion merges and consensus is, 
> branches and tags are broken on projects that are being merged into 
> another project, due to the fact that the tag/branch repository 
> specific and don't translate to a new repository structure."
>
> So it looks like we may need to have an OLD COLLECTION OF REPOSITORIES

> (3.2.x) and a NEW REPOSITORY (3.3.x and beyond). This is not ideal but

> I do not know what else to do at this point.
>
> Thoughts and ideas welcome?
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fdo-internals mailing list
> fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
>

_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Brent Robinson" <brent.robinson at autodesk.com>
Subject: [fdo-dev] Binary compatibility change to fdo.dll (trunk version)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:05:02 -0500
Size: 2143
Url: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/fdo-internals/attachments/20070126/b48c7751/attachment.mht
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Brent Robinson" <brent.robinson at autodesk.com>
Subject: [fdo-announce] Important note regarding MySQL provider changes
	intrunk (character sets).
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:53:11 -0500
Size: 9236
Url: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/fdo-internals/attachments/20070126/b48c7751/attachment-0001.mht