This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: New branch [was Re: RFC: MI output during program execution]
- From: PAUL GILLIAM <pgilliam at us dot ibm dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 08:54:02 -0700
- Subject: Re: New branch [was Re: RFC: MI output during program execution]
- References: <17458.60694.135878.624750@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20060404220637.GA12064@nevyn.them.org> <17486.36188.127822.347550@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20060504150414.GE32605@nevyn.them.org> <17508.18716.564160.93092@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20060512124331.GA3460@nevyn.them.org> <17510.34460.791254.936961@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20060513022851.GA24947@nevyn.them.org>
- Reply-to: pgilliam at us dot ibm dot com
On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 22:28 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 01:23:40PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
> > Perhaps I'm confusing things a bit. Maybe mergepoints are just for merging
> > HEAD to branch.
>
> Right.
>
> > Is any tagging needed when the branch gets merged to HEAD?
> > (possibly a bit hypothetical as I realise I may never get that far).
>
> Not really. Normally, you'll just take the diff from the last
> mergepoint to the branch tip, and apply that to HEAD, and declare the
> branch dead - or declare the branch dead somewhat before that as the
> patch gets reviewed, depending how it works out.
>
> All this is much easier in non-CVS...
>
Is it time again to talk about SVN?