[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: practical questions of archive ownership
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: practical questions of archive ownership |
Date: |
01 Oct 2003 15:33:59 +0900 |
Andrew Suffield <address@hidden> writes:
> Here you want a patch queue manager. Your central archive then belongs
> to a program which does all the merging (conflicts are "handled" by
> bouncing the group of changes - no conflict resolution occurs in this
> archive).
I'm not sure why I would want this; it sounds like to sanely be able to
resolve `bounced' conflicts, each developer would have to maintain
exactly the same update/resolve discipline with a patch-queue manager
system as with the manual case, only the commit step would be different
-- sending to PQM. Since this style of commits would have increased
latency compared to a normal commit it seems like it would have a
greater chance of incurring more conflicts.
Or is the theory that conflicts are rare and so one must only
update/resolve against the canonical branch when they happen?
-Miles
--
Saa, shall we dance? (from a dance-class advertisement)