Avoiding massive merges

[John Levon]

On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 12:56:46PM -0700, Stuart W. Marks wrote:

> > But I still don't understand what the original poster wanted to do ! 
> > Just updating directory or  patching ?
> > 
> > Francesco
> 
> The OP had made a bunch of changes to Xen 3.0.4. Now he's pulled in Xen 3.1 and 
> he wants to take the changes they made to 3.0.4 and merge them into 3.1. That's 
> why a merge is necessary.

Actually not quite correct - we had no changes to upstream at all. As
the ASCII art showed, the 3.0.4 tree had branched off, and we needed to
move onwards to 3.1 - since the 3.1 tree doesn't have that 3.0.4 branch,
a merge was needed (and always will be).

It's a bit unfortunate that it's not possible for us to keep the exact
same history as upstream.

We keep our changes in MQ.

> This seems to be a pretty common situation; we run into it too on our project. 
> Thanks to the other respondents for the techniques they posted.

Since they're a bit scary, I'm planning on writing a small extension
('hg jump', although others didn't like the name much). This will be a
daily operation...

regards
john