[fdo-internals] SVN Repository Merge Issues

Greg Boone greg.boone at autodesk.com
Wed Jan 31 09:46:18 EST 2007


Please let everyone know when the repository is re-opened for commits.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: shawn barnes [mailto:sbarnes at dmsolutions.ca] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:38 AM
To: Greg Boone
Cc: Robert Bray; FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] SVN Repository Merge Issues

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The repositories are up but, commits are locked out until i'm done the
merge.

shawn

Greg Boone wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>       
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>  
>>>
> 
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFv3RbhzE9g90MFjcRAha5AJ43VgdgAdo0RBptrl/g9EPQB9ytpACeOHCo
dvq+LGHNCW5nwFKCOi6SwjY=
=UEUH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the fdo-internals mailing list