[fdo-internals] SVN Repository Merge Issues
Gavin Cramer
gavin.cramer at autodesk.com
Mon Jan 29 09:43:13 EST 2007
I first read this to be in agreement with what Greg asked, and was only
stopped from merging my 3.2.x changes to the trunk on Sunday by a
machine failure. Re-reading, it looks ambiguous -- Bob, do I port my
outstanding 3.2.x changes to the trunk ASAP, or wait until Shawn is
done?
Thanx
Gavin
_____
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bray
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 2:41 AM
To: Greg Boone
Cc: FDO Internals Mail List; Shawn Barnes
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] SVN Repository Merge Issues
We only have three more days of Shawn full time, so I would like to get
this done before he moves on to other things.
Bob
Greg Boone wrote:
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/20070129/b1f5f727/attachment.html
More information about the fdo-internals
mailing list