Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:45000 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 41199 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2009 22:57:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Jul 2009 22:57:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=jeffg@activestate.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=jeffg@activestate.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain activestate.com designates 204.244.102.3 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: jeffg@activestate.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 204.244.102.3 mx.activestate.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [204.244.102.3] ([204.244.102.3:53959] helo=mx.activestate.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id DE/86-09639-350BF5A4 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:57:24 -0400 Received: from box5.activestate.com (box25.activestate.com [192.168.69.70]) by mx.activestate.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2376E180DC; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.69.200] (opus.activestate.com [192.168.69.200]) by box5.activestate.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D27B82DB; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A5FB051.2030207@activestate.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:57:21 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1pre) Gecko/20090713 Shredder/3.0b3pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: shire CC: PHP Developers Mailing List References: <4A5FA493.9040204@lerdorf.com> <4A5FA8B2.1080102@sci.fi> <4A5FAD73.1060109@tekrat.com> In-Reply-To: <4A5FAD73.1060109@tekrat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] svn checkout suggestion From: jeffg@activestate.com (Jeff Griffiths) On 16/07/09 3:45 PM, shire wrote: ... > Do we have a long-term plan of using actual merge commands/tools to > merge our branches rather than duplicating commits or manually merging? > I think this could speed up development and allow us to have more > control over releases, versions, etc. I've seen cases in the past where > changes fall through the cracks because they didn't get manually merged > up/down. The ability to merge complete branches as a branch rather than > many different commits could save some hastle assuming everyone follows > the same commit/merge patterns. I'd suggest looking into the svnmerge tool: http://www.orcaware.com/svn/wiki/Svnmerge.py We use it quite a bit at ActiveState to migrate changes from developer branches into trunk, and then into production. I would caution that the merge actions might not be to everyone's taste, so you might want to either encourage use or ban use depending on your preference. We have some quite excellent Komodo-specific documentation a co-worker wrote on how to use this tool for developer branches specifically; I could see about providing this to someone if they want to try svnmerge out. cheers, Jeff