Re: [MiNT] [Mint-cvs] [FreeMiNT CVS] freemint/sys/arch

[Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.co.uk>]

On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 19:19 +0000, p.slegg@scubadivers.co.uk wrote:
> >---- Original Message ----
> >From: "Helmut Karlowski" <helmut.karlowski@ish.de>
> >To: "mint@lists.fishpool.fi" <mint@lists.fishpool.fi>
> >Sent: Sun, Jan 3, 2010, 5:58 PM
> >Subject: Re: [MiNT] [Mint-cvs] [FreeMiNT CVS] freemint/sys/arch
> >
> >Am 03.01.2010, 18:49 Uhr, schrieb Jo Even Skarstein <joska@online.no>:
> >
> >> 2. Helmut is working on XaAES, and has so far a ~200Kb patch that is not
> >>  applied.
> >
> >300k.
> >
> >> I just hope that you guys are coordinating this...
> >
> >Don't worry (be happy).
> >
> >-Helmut
> 
> Ok we have several groups of changes that should be integrated
> if possible.
> 
> Will this work...?
> 
> 1. Pick a module
> 2. spend 1-2 days trying to integrate the changes
> into one version.
> 3. if the changes are minimal or have no obvious knock-on
> effect to other modules then commit to cvs.
> 4. repeat from 1.
> 
> I know merging stuff is not trivial and it is time consuming
> but it can be worthwhile.
> 
> Is this worth having a cvs branch version for a month or so
> until the changes can be cvs merged ?

Given any sizable changes I think branches work very well and let other
developers work in isolation until they're happy with the work being
done, but also allows others to contribute and look over things.

Merging later ensures the feature/fix makes it into the mainline code in
an organized way.

Small isolated changes should go straight to HEAD (master).

I have to say, that CVS sucks for merging, and git (or maybe subversion)
is much better at this. That's a side comment though and I'm not
mandating a version control system change.

Alan.