<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Perforce Automatic Merging</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.robertcowham.com/blog/74/perforce-automatic-merging/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.robertcowham.com/blog/74/perforce-automatic-merging/</link>
	<description>Robert Cowham&#039;s Musings</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:26:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Suman</title>
		<link>http://www.robertcowham.com/blog/74/perforce-automatic-merging/comment-page-1/#comment-18</link>
		<dc:creator>Suman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 21:58:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robertcowham.com/wordpress/?p=74#comment-18</guid>
		<description>Hi Robert: 
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;We implemented a process so all the code in development branch will be automatically merged to the release branch. After automatic merge, we publish a report highlighting the conflicts which arose out of auto merge and ask developers to manually resolve those conflicts. We have observed that there are occasions where auto merge utility actually stripped or inserted some code by itself and that resulted in bugs in release 
&lt;br&gt;branch. These also do not appear in the conflict report - only way we catch them today is by having quality team filing bugs and engineers fixing them in release branch (and in that process, complain!).
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Areas I am looking for help on:
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;1. Is there a solution available to the auto merge problem?
&lt;br&gt;2. Is there a way to generate a report of these differences (where auto merge stripped / inserted code) so we can catch them before spending quality engineer&#039;s time on it?
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Suman</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Robert: </p>
<p>We implemented a process so all the code in development branch will be automatically merged to the release branch. After automatic merge, we publish a report highlighting the conflicts which arose out of auto merge and ask developers to manually resolve those conflicts. We have observed that there are occasions where auto merge utility actually stripped or inserted some code by itself and that resulted in bugs in release<br />
<br />branch. These also do not appear in the conflict report &#8211; only way we catch them today is by having quality team filing bugs and engineers fixing them in release branch (and in that process, complain!).</p>
<p>Areas I am looking for help on:</p>
<p>1. Is there a solution available to the auto merge problem?<br />
<br />2. Is there a way to generate a report of these differences (where auto merge stripped / inserted code) so we can catch them before spending quality engineer&#39;s time on it?</p>
<p>Suman</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
