Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: named patches, patch order, patch queue manager

[Davide Libenzi]

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> >>>>> "Davide" == Davide Libenzi <address@hidden> writes:
>
>     Davide> Nope, they're two different things.
>
> Only because you've already put restrictions on the implementation,
> and your proposed implementation is somewhat different from the
> implementation of arch branches.
>
>     Davide> It is very simple to implement (once you have named patches),
>
> But arch does have named patches, except that they're called branches.
>
> There's nothing that prevents you from having a one-patch branch.
> There's nothing that prevents you from creating a branch and adding
> only that patch to it later, thus giving the patch a name "ex post".
>
> This scheme has all the properties you have so far specified (nb. this
> is my opinion because you have drawn no dividing line between
> specification and implementation, and there's far too much low-level
> implementation in your posts) for a virtual patch.

Named patches and virtual patches enable you to work on the same branch
with multiple independent logical patches, w/out switching continuosly
branches. Virtual patches enable you to create a virtual group of patches
dynamically, on the same branch that hosts other virtual patches. And
those virtual patches could be fetched by name and trigger the replay of
all real (or even virtual) patches that are part of the group. Many times
it is not a matter if a tool is able to do something, but is a matter of
how many step you have to do to accomplish what you need. Personally I can
afford doing eventually extra steps because I do not do complex things
frequently with arch. Ppl doing this 100 times a day might think in a
different way though.



> You just don't like the namespace that Tom chose; lots of us agree
> with _that_ matter of taste, but (unfortunately) there is no agreement
> on a better organization.  Maybe the ideas of virtual patches and
> named patches point to something generally useful.

The fs structure I believe is fine indeed. But you have to agree that
vm-fix-hipte-locking is better than patch-417. I think there was a sort of
agreement on named patches though.



>     Davide> ... but adding code is always bad if there're other simple
>     Davide> ways to do the same thing.
>
> Good advice.  Consider it yourself.  :-)

Sarcasm apart, the reason of suggestions coming from myself and Andrea
(that knows better than me intrinsic problems of lk handling) is that we
both would like to see arch used by Linus. And this w/out arch being
killed by LM or by the same Linus/maintainers finding out that what
they did in one step with bk it takes four in arch. But if you say that
it's not true, then I'm feeling better already :-)
(pls note that I have nothing personal against LM or bk, but I'd just like
to see open source software handled by open source software)



- Davide