[fdo-internals] SVN Repository Merge Issues
Greg Boone
greg.boone at autodesk.com
Tue Jan 30 11:24:34 EST 2007
Are the 3.2.x branches still open for submissions?
-----Original Message-----
From: shawn barnes [mailto:sbarnes at dmsolutions.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:59 AM
To: Robert Bray
Cc: Greg Boone; FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] SVN Repository Merge Issues
Bob,
I'm starting the merge now.
I'm pulling a complete backup of the repositories now (9am EST) and then
take the repositories down.
Merge everything and then put everything backup including the new merged
repository.
Question on naming. What is the name of the new merged repository?
(repository names can be easily changed)
shawn
Robert Bray wrote:
> Great, thanks Greg! Shawn can you proceed with the merge tomorrow?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
>
> Greg Boone wrote:
>>
>> The Merges from 3.2.x -> Trunk should now be complete in all FDO SVN
repositories.
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
>>
>> *From:* Robert Bray [mailto:rbray at robertbray.net]
>> *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>
>>
>> [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
<mailto:fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org>
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> fdo-internals mailing list
>>
>> fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
<mailto:fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org>
>>
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> fdo-internals mailing list
>>
>> fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
<mailto:fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org>
>>
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
More information about the fdo-internals
mailing list