question re merging branches

christian · Post by **christian** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:46 am

Hi guys,
A question for you. I've got some a new folder (containing a whole heap load of sub-folders) that I want to add to both our Mainline (trunk) and Release Candidate branch. I'm intending to add this folder to Mainline and then merge it into the branch. The files in this new folder will then be worked on in parallel. I'm expecting to see additions, deletions, updates and renames on both codelines. Can I use the Merge wizard to merge changes made on the RC branch back into the Mainline ie will the wizard know the common baseline from which version history diverged to be able to reconcile renames, deletions etc?

Thanks in advance
Christian

ericsink · Post by **ericsink** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:39 am

As of 2.0, the merge branches wizard doesn't really use any information about the branch point. This is the basic way we made the feature bidirectional -- it doesn't care if the origin and target folders used to be related through a branch operation. You can run the wizard on any two folders, whether one of them is a branch or not.

I don't think this will cause you problems, but it can sometimes create situations where resolving the merge later is a bit less automatic. I general, the wizard works very hard never to do anything wrong, even if that means making the user do a little bit more work. The basic theory here is that the user is smarter.

I'm not sure this answers your question, but if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't hesitate to go forward. The merge branches feature was designed to help you do exactly what you are trying to do.

christian · Post by **christian** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:54 am

Thanks for the info Eric. It's very useful to get the inside track on how the wizard works. I'll go ahead with what I was intending to do.

There's been a bit of talk recently (of which I may be one of the more vocal!) about getting more support for tracking and maintaining branch activity. Where do you think you will be concentrating your development resources in this area of branching?

Thanks
Christian

FYI, some of my posts on this subject:
http://support.sourcegear.com/viewtopic ... ght=#11302
http://support.sourcegear.com/viewtopic ... ght=#11061
http://support.sourcegear.com/viewtopic ... ight=#9265
http://support.sourcegear.com/viewtopic ... ight=#9204

ericsink · Post by **ericsink** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:40 am

christian wrote:There's been a bit of talk recently (of which I may be one of the more vocal!) about getting more support for tracking and maintaining branch activity. Where do you think you will be concentrating your development resources in this area of branching?

I don't think I can answer this question, but I can say that I'm working on it.

Merge Branches is the feature of Vault which I "own". I wrote the original 1.0 implementation. In 2.0, I rewrote it with a very different approach. In 3.0, I did some minor improvements to make the wizard less confusing.

I'm working now on a spec for how this feature could be improved for version 4.0. The feature will probably remain "mine", although I suppose there is some possibility I might delegate it to another developer.

Anyway, by now you have noticed that this response is content-free, so I'll just shut up, except to say that I am listening to users' feedback on this feature.

christian · Post by **christian** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:59 am

Ok, I was kinda expecting you weren't able to get specific with what you're planning ;-)

It is a bleedin complex area this branch and merge malarkey and I think the majority of developers won't have the inclination to crib up on the various nuances and forces at work.

However, that said, I still think that you could air what you're thinking and the decisions process you're going through a little bit more. Not 100% sure whether Vault forums is the place for it but then that's what blogging is there for :-). Even if you where to use a blog as a sounding board for your ideas you would get feedback from the industry in general. I for one would like to contribute in open discussions that weren’t strcitly tied to Vault.

Christian

ericsink · Post by **ericsink** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:33 pm

I'll see what I can do. After all, since I <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/longhorn/defa ... >preach</a> transparency, I am always interested in good ways to practice it.

christian · Post by **christian** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:03 pm

Had a quick read of the article and this is exactly what I'm encouraging you to do - I'm not saying make promises but do openly discuss your direction and longer term strategies particularly in this rich area of potential functionality.

Keep up the good work
Christian