[fdo-internals] SVN Repository Merge Issues

Sat Jan 27 09:21:19 EST 2007

Hi Bob,

We are still porting a few defects from 3.2.x -> trunk. I would like to complete this process before we perform the merge.

Greg.

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Robert Bray [mailto:rbray at robertbray.net] 
	Sent: Sat 1/27/2007 3:01 AM 
	To: FDO Internals Mail List 
	Cc: Greg Boone; Shawn Barnes 
	Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] SVN Repository Merge Issues

	This does not look too bad, but to save ourselves the hassle let's just stick with plan A. Until further notice please avoid submitting anything to trunk.

	Shawn, can you plan to create the new FDO SVN repository on Monday by merging all of the fdoXXX trunks?

	Thanks,
	Bob 

	Greg Boone wrote: 

		Hi all,

		At this point, we have identified the following code submissions that
		were made in the trunk and not in 3.2.x

		            603
		            628
		            652

		Details...

		------------------------------------------------------------------------
		r603 | brentrobinson | 2006-12-18 10:09:39 -0500 (Mon, 18 Dec 2006) | 1
		line
		Changed paths:
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Common.vcproj
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Fdo.vcproj
		   A /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Common/Compare.h
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Fdo/Expression/ByteValue.h
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Fdo/Expression/DataValue.h
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Fdo/Expression/DateTimeValue.h
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Fdo/Expression/DecimalValue.h
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Fdo/Expression/DoubleValue.h
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Fdo/Expression/Int16Value.h
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Fdo/Expression/Int32Value.h
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Fdo/Expression/Int64Value.h
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Fdo/Expression/SingleValue.h
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Fdo/Expression/StringValue.h
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Fdo/Schema/MergeContext.h
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Fdo/Schema/PropertyValueConstraint.h
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Fdo/Schema/PropertyValueConstraintList.h
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Fdo/Schema/PropertyValueConstraintRange.h
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/FdoCommon.h
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Makefile.am
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Src/Fdo/Expression/ByteValue.cpp
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Src/Fdo/Expression/DataValue.cpp
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Src/Fdo/Expression/DateTimeValue.cpp
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Src/Fdo/Expression/DecimalValue.cpp
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Src/Fdo/Expression/DoubleValue.cpp
		   A /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Src/Fdo/Expression/ExpressionInternal.cpp 
		   A /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Src/Fdo/Expression/ExpressionInternal.h 
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Src/Fdo/Expression/Int16Value.cpp
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Src/Fdo/Expression/Int32Value.cpp
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Src/Fdo/Expression/Int64Value.cpp
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Src/Fdo/Expression/SingleValue.cpp
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Src/Fdo/Expression/StringValue.cpp
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Src/Fdo/Makefile.am
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Src/Fdo/Schema/DataPropertyDefinition.cpp
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Src/Fdo/Schema/MergeContext.cpp
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Src/Fdo/Schema/PropertyValueConstraintList.cpp
		   M
		/trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Src/Fdo/Schema/PropertyValueConstraintRange.cpp
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Src/Message/FDOMessage.mc

		FDO342: Support SDF constraint update.
		------------------------------------------------------------------------

		r628 | brentrobinson | 2007-01-12 17:38:53 -0500 (Fri, 12 Jan 2007) | 1
		line
		Changed paths:
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Fdo/Expression/DoubleValue.h

		Removed circular friend reference

		------------------------------------------------------------------------
		r652 | brentrobinson | 2007-01-23 16:21:24 -0500 (Tue, 23 Jan 2007) | 1
		line
		Changed paths:
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Fdo.vcproj
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Fdo/Raster/DataValueCollection.h
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Fdo/Raster/IRasterPropertyDictionary.h
		   M /trunk/Fdo/Unmanaged/Inc/Fdo.h

		Deprecated redundant Inc/Fdo/Raster/DataValueCollection.h.
		------------------------------------------------------------------------

		-----Original Message-----
		From: Greg Boone 
		Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:15 AM
		To: 'FDO Internals Mail List'
		Cc: Shawn Barnes
		Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] SVN Repository Merge Issues

		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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/fdo-internals/attachments/20070127/49ae3e62/attachment.html