[Bioperl-l] branch/trunk fixes

[Jason Stajich]

no I like to do this too, I just reserve 'experimental' fixes for the
main-trunk.  These are fixes which I am not sure really fix a reported
bug.  It is my responsibility to move these fixes to the branch.

I think keeping a document of needed changes is probably a good idea.  I
know that Chris had some changes he made and they have not been merged
onto main trunk.  It would be good to take care of those soon.  I've not
much experience with cvs -j, I would prefer developer to make changes on
both branches rather than relying on cvs -j because things may have begun
to diverge some.

-Jason

On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Hilmar Lapp wrote:

> I and probably no-one else particularly like to apply every fix on
> both the main trunk and branch. Ideally we can apply it to only
> one of both, and some time later merge the fixes into the other
> branch using cvs -j.
>
> 1) Is there some experience whether this works nicely, or do you
> usually run into trouble?
> 2) Which of branch and main trunk is the 'right' one to fix (on
> which one should the merge be made?)?
> 3) If we go this route, we probably should keep a file somewhere
> in the repository that lists the files to be merged, and everyone
> who makes changes is supposed to add the module to that list if
> he/she wants his/her changes to be merged over.
>
> 	Hilmar
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Hilmar Lapp                              email: hilmarl@yahoo.com
> GNF, San Diego, Ca. 92122                phone: +1 858 812 1757
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l@bioperl.org
> http://bioperl.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
>

Jason Stajich
jason@chg.mc.duke.edu
Center for Human Genetics
Duke University Medical Center
http://www.chg.duke.edu/