From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26909 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2002 20:07:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26901 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 20:07:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO valrhona.uglyboxes.com) (64.1.192.220) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 20:07:53 -0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (IDENT:0rE6j18ULF/f7PoZnPtG8X7xcvWgLN8o@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by valrhona.uglyboxes.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8JK9uf01709; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:10:11 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:07:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz X-X-Sender: keiths@valrhona.uglyboxes.com To: Kevin Buettner cc: David Carlton , Subject: Re: branching In-Reply-To: <1020919193025.ZM22088@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00283.txt.bz2 On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Kevin Buettner wrote: > Maybe I'm being naive, but why can't you just checkout your branch, > and then do: > > cvs update -j HEAD Because CVS will continue to try to merge all changes into the branch from the time the branch was created, and you'll get tons of conflicts for a bunch of changes that were already merged. When you tag the mainline and use the two "-j" options telling CVS to merge from point A to point B, it only merges the new changes. You can see this, for example, by checking out a branch and doing an update of a single file, once with just "-j HEAD" and once with "-j OLD -j NEW". For example, on my interpreter branch, valops.c was taken from version 1.59. When I do "cvs -q update -j HEAD" on this file, it says "Merging differences between 1.59 and 1.75 into valops.c". Well, I've already merged through version 1.69 previously, and now there are conflicts in the file. But when I use "-j OLD" "-j NEW", it merges only between 1.69 and 1.75 with no conflicts. FWIW, David, your procedure is exactly the procedure that I've been using in my interpreter branch. Keith