On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 06:20:17PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 
> 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...

If you change a line which also has an unrelated change in the branch,
this will cause a conflict when the branch is merged. Even if you make the
same change in the branch and in HEAD.

Pavel