Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Bash completion merge done. Arch rules.

[Scott Bronson]

On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 08:29, David Allouche wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:54:06AM -0800, Scott Bronson wrote:
> > Now the whole tla-bash-completions tree is a single directory in
> > tlacontrib.  All its history has been preserved.  All development will
> > move to tlacontrib.
> 
> I do not understand why you did that...

Because that's what the docs say...

  $ tla sync-tree -H

  The new project tree is formed by getting the REVISION and
  adding all patch-log entries from REVISION.

That says to me that any patch-log entries that you want to be sync'd
need to actually be _in_ REVISION, i.e. be a part of commit.

I just had another a-ha moment.  I suppose each revision contains the
patch logs from all its previous revisions...  So, the needed log
entries really WERE in REVISION, even if they weren't in the changeset
for that revision.  That's an important distinction.



> If sb is _not_ up-to-date with rwa, then what you did is incorrect,
> because it will store patchlogs for changes which are not present in the
> copied files. You can alway fix that later, but why do complicated and
> incorrect when you cand do simple and correct?

Since I copied the files from the newest sb, all changes mentioned by
the patchlogs are present and accounted for.  In the end it sounds like
I added 2 unnecessary changeless revisions
(tla-bash-complete--flatten--base-0 and
tla-bash-complete--flatten--patch-1) to tlacontrib's project history. 
Oh well, live and learn.  Next time I do this (a year or two from
now...) I'll try without first flattening the tree.

Thanks again for your suggestion.  Even if I used it wrong,
sync-tree is unquestionably the right tool for this job.  I'm still
stoked that merging works.  :)

    - Scott


Hm, I suppose I should copy your suggestion to the recipes page on the
new wiki...