On Dec 8,  6:20pm, perry@piermont.com ("Perry E. Metzger") wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/x86/x86

| christos@zoulas.com (Christos Zoulas) writes:
| > | Okay.
| > | 
| > | Alternatively, it would be pretty easy to apply the diffs to those
| > | branches at the same time. I imagine that would serve the same
| > | purpose? (The changes are quite straightforward, and I could patch the
| > | three branches as well as the head without any trouble.)
| >
| > If you want to patch head and re-sync the branches (not patch the branches,
| > because this does not help much), get permission from the branch owners and
| > do it...
| 
| I don't quite get the difference -- can you explain? I would have
| thought that if I performed the same transformation on both the trunk
| and the branch it would eliminate any incremental merge effort the
| change imposed. CVS doesn't keep track of change sets, after all...

It is cleaner to apply changes between head and branch using merges, rather
than patches. I've seen CVS create conflicts trying to apply the same diff
instead of recognizing that the patch has been applied, so I don't do it
anymore.

christos