Peter Todd wrote:

> It's certainely true that managing branches is the key to how easy
> merging is, but the whole point of a system like monotone is that you
> are given the tools to manage branches properly in the first place.

I think that's the conclusion here, for me. From what I can gather,
monotone has implemented a set of features that helps tremendously with
branch management.

> Yes and no. In the revision log monotone will clearly state what was the
> start and end revisions of a cherry pick, however no-one has written a
> visual tool that takes advantage of that yet. 

In this sentence, you mention the probably most important issues (for me)
with monotone: good branch management, and lack of visual and integration
tools (at least on Windows, in the style of TortoiseCVS and SCC
integration). 

> I already had a v1.1 branch with the new hardware design, so the first
> thing I did was I made the changes for my slightly different pic chip,
> different makefile and some minor changes to the c files. Then I made
> the IO pin changes. All in v1.1 branch. 
> 
> Going back to the v1.0 branch I fixed some firmware issues and did an
> explicit_merge of the correct revisions in 1.0 and the head of the 1.1
> branch. All the changes were merged without a hitch.

FWIW, this is quite similar to how I work. 

This has been a very interesting exchange, and somehow we managed to avoid
the usual pissing contest ("my VCS is better than yours" :). I've learned a
bit, and I definitely will include monotone docs into my searches when I'm
looking for ideas about branch management in the future.

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist