[ale] Strategies for OS code in the Enterprise

[Chris Fowler]

Hand merging works best.  But if you fixed the bugs, why did you not
post a patch to be placed into the main tree?


On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 15:19, John Wells wrote:
> Guys,
> 
> In my relatively new management role, I'm doing my best at every turn to
> leverage the power of open source software.
> 
> I have, however, a problem I've never really faced before.  We're
> implementing a issue tracking package (www.issue-tracker.com) and have
> installed the latest "stable" release.  While testing it, we've run across
> a number of bugs.  We've also installed the latest development version
> from CVS which fixes a lot of the bugs, but introduces a lot more.
> 
> So, what I'm left with is a "fork" of issue-tracker...our locally
> maintained and personally fixed version, and the official tree at
> issue-tracker.com.  For the sake of upgrades and to keep the ability of
> taking advantage of enhancements, I need to come up with a strategy of
> "syncing" the trees upon the next major release.
> 
> While I'm guessing this will simply involve me downloading the release and
> updating our local cvs repos with the latest code (handling any merges by
> hand), the idea isn't necessarily pleasant.  I'm still thinking through
> the issue, but would like to hear other input from you guys...ever faced a
> similar situation?  Did you come up with an ingeniuous solution?  Is there
> a feature of CVS I'm missing that makes this easy?
> 
> Thanks for the input!
> 
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale