Tracing file modifications from another branch

Hi,

We often use private branches. We ask for private branches the branches
which have for definition : branches created by a single user in order to
add a new enhancement for our software or when changes may be consequent.
This is usefull to do "partial" commits without letting files is a temporary
state.

We create such private branches to work without annoying other developpers
and when development is finished, we merge it to the trunk and resolve
conflicts at the time.

The only way to resolve conflicts later (this may be usefull when using
unique identifiers to avoid duplication after merging and lot of time to
update all files that use them) is to open the repository browser or another
SmartSVN and check for remote state of these files (or doing a log on the
trunk...).

Should it be possible to add a new functionality that will inform the user
that a file has been modified (as the RemoteState does), but not referring
to the head of the same branch but referring to the head of another
branch/trunk ?
We could configure it on the files/directories/root of the project and
another column will be available (in addition to the RemoteState) that will
show the RemoteState of the referred branch ?

--
Best regards,
Sebastien

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

That sounds interesting. If I read it correctly, what you want is a column
showing merge results, if you were to merge to trunk?

>From what I've read, the "standard" way to deal with this is to have the
private developer constantly merge in changes from trunk into their branch, to
make it easier to merge back later. For what you mentioned, just to get the
state, I think that can be achieved by doing a switch with --dry-run, since a
switch is the same as update by to a specified branch, but I didn't see such a
feature on the command line tools.

Jason

Sebastien Daloz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We often use private branches. We ask for private branches the branches
> which have for definition : branches created by a single user in order to
> add a new enhancement for our software or when changes may be consequent.
> This is usefull to do "partial" commits without letting files is a temporary
> state.
>
> We create such private branches to work without annoying other developpers
> and when development is finished, we merge it to the trunk and resolve
> conflicts at the time.
>
> The only way to resolve conflicts later (this may be usefull when using
> unique identifiers to avoid duplication after merging and lot of time to
> update all files that use them) is to open the repository browser or another
> SmartSVN and check for remote state of these files (or doing a log on the
> trunk...).
>
> Should it be possible to add a new functionality that will inform the user
>; that a file has been modified (as the RemoteState does), but not referring
> to the head of the same branch but referring to the head of another
> branch/trunk ?
> We could configure it on the files/directories/root of the project and
> another column will be available (in addition to the RemoteState) that will
>; show the RemoteState of the referred branch ?
>

Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

> Should it be possible to add a new functionality that will inform the user
>; that a file has been modified (as the RemoteState does), but not referring
> to the head of the same branch but referring to the head of another
> branch/trunk ?

One problem here is relative to which revision the Remote State should
be calculated: Once you have merged changes from trunk, SmartSVN must
know that in your branch you are now at Trunk head revision and not at
that revision from which the branch has been forked. This is currently
impossible; it might be possible when using merge-tracking info (SVN
1.5), but it sounds still quite complex.

> For what you mentioned, just to get the
> state, I think that can be achieved by doing a switch with --dry-run, since a
> switch is the same as update by to a specified branch, but I didn't see such a
> feature on the command line tools.

As far as I know, there is no switch --dry-run, but there is a merge
--dry-run which will also be supported by SmartSVN 4. Together with
merge-tracking info this should give quite the same information (which
files have been changed, which files will be conflicting, etc.) as the
proposed Remote State enhancement.

--
Best regards,
Marc Strapetz
_____________
syntevo.com

Jason Winnebeck wrote:
> That sounds interesting. If I read it correctly, what you want is a column
> showing merge results, if you were to merge to trunk?
>
> From what I've read, the "standard" way to deal with this is to have the
> private developer constantly merge in changes from trunk into their branch, to
> make it easier to merge back later. For what you mentioned, just to get the
> state, I think that can be achieved by doing a switch with --dry-run, since a
> switch is the same as update by to a specified branch, but I didn't see such a
> feature on the command line tools.
>
> Jason
>
> Sebastien Daloz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We often use private branches. We ask for private branches the branches
>> which have for definition : branches created by a single user in order to
>> add a new enhancement for our software or when changes may be consequent.
>>; This is usefull to do "partial" commits without letting files is a temporary
>> state.
>>
>> We create such private branches to work without annoying other developpers
>>; and when development is finished, we merge it to the trunk and resolve
>> conflicts at the time.
>>
>> The only way to resolve conflicts later (this may be usefull when using
>> unique identifiers to avoid duplication after merging and lot of time to
>> update all files that use them) is to open the repository browser or another
>> SmartSVN and check for remote state of these files (or doing a log on the
>> trunk...).
>>
>> Should it be possible to add a new functionality that will inform the user
>;> that a file has been modified (as the RemoteState does), but not referring
>> to the head of the same branch but referring to the head of another
>> branch/trunk ?
>> We could configure it on the files/directories/root of the project and
>> another column will be available (in addition to the RemoteState) that will
>;> show the RemoteState of the referred branch ?
>>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

SmartSVN knows revision from which the branch was created, and the original
branch from where it new branch comes.

That I would like is just to be notified when a file is updated on the
original branch (or a branch I could configure, I will name it OB),
comparing revision of the OB with that of the current branch (private
branch, PB). A new column « original branch » may display information like «
is modified », « latest »... This information will be displayed when digin a
refesh (as remote state), not merge.

When doing a merge from OB to PV, it would be interesting to save last
revisions (from OB) of files that are merged in order to update the state
correcly.

Note that I don't want to merge from PB to OB until I finish working on PB.
I just want to be notified that OB contains changes that can be interesting
to me to merge from OB to PV, in order to fix conflicts earlier or use fixes
that can be done in OB without having to check manually changes from TMate,
Log or something else.

Using merge --dry-run may be a solution, but I think this would be time
consumption cause I don't need to know exactly what changed in a file (log
is usefull for this), but what file changed.

--
Best regards,
Sebastien

2007/10/24, SyntEvo Support < smartsvn-support%40syntevo.com">smartsvn-supportsyntevo.com>:
>
> One problem here is relative to which revision the Remote State should
&gt; be calculated: Once you have merged changes from trunk, SmartSVN must
>; know that in your branch you are now at Trunk head revision and not at
> that revision from which the branch has been forked. This is currently
> impossible; it might be possible when using merge-tracking info (SVN
>; 1.5), but it sounds still quite complex.
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.