Avoiding massive merges

[Stuart W. Marks]

John Levon wrote:
> 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).

Oh. I guess I completely misinterpreted the ASCII diagram to represent the 
common "merge local changes with upstream changes" problem. If you're not doing 
this, then I guess I have the same question as Francesco -- I don't understand 
what needs to be merged here. But since others have apparently solved your 
problem, it might not be worth your effort to continue trying to explain it. 
Though I am curious....

s'marks