[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 23:07 +1100, Peter Wang wrote:
> On 2005-11-01, Elias Pschernig <elias@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 12:26 +1100, Peter Wang wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I would really like to migrate to Subversion ASAP, after 4.2.0 is out.
> > > The 4.3 source needs reorganising so that is it more obviously
> > > stratified and modular. Files need to be renamed and moved about but I
> > > don't want to lose the histories doing that. And hopefully SVN would be
> > > smarter at merging after renames than CVS (anyone know?)
> >
> > A rename is handled like any other change to a file. So if you merge
> > changes, and the changes include a file rename, also the file rename is
> > merged. If you merge only over revisions which had no file rename, then
> > you get no file name change.
>
> I'm thinking of the situation where the 4.2.0 branch has a file called
> src/something.c but in the new_api_branch it's been moved to
> src/module/something.c. I would like if changes to one could be merged
> into the other, even though they no longer have the same path.
Yes, I think it will work. E.g. if the rename in the new branch is in
revision 100, then you change something in revision 105. Now if you
merge back with -r 99:105 into the old branch, it will rename the file.
If you merge back with -r 100:105, it only will merge back the changes
inside the file, not the rename.
> > Otherwise, I think we should ask for the Subversion beta.
> >
> > "If your project wishes to be considered for the
> > Subversion beta, please submit a Confidential Support
> > Request."
> >
> > Hm, how do you submit a Confidential request?
>
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=add&group_id=1&atid=596964
>
> Which I got from here:
>
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1341005&group_id=1&atid=350001
>
Ahh, somehow I had read over that - anyway, I guess you will do it
(unless something speaks against it?).
--
Elias Pschernig