[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: 'arch send' format
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: 'arch send' format |
Date: |
16 Apr 2004 18:16:01 +0900 |
Amit Shah <address@hidden> writes:
> We could have a shell script with a normal patch that shows changes within
> files. For representing changes to the file structure (like renames,
> deletes, etc.), we could put shell commands like "mv foo.h bar.h" and so
> on, so that patches created by people using arch for people using other
> systems (or even arch, but don't want to "get" the changesets from some
> archive) can be applied normally.
People always suggest this when the topic comes up, and it seems like
a really bad idea to me; it's just too dangerous for people to get in
the habit of running shell scripts they receive.
I don't even like the idea of a representation that only _looks_ like
shell commands (but is applied by a special program) -- people might
still get into the habit of running it anyway, or trying to.
It seems simpler and more comforting to have a nice simple abstract
representation which is easily turned back into a changeset and applied
by `dopatch' (perhaps a single tla command does everything, but anyway).
[
Maybe it's nicer to use a renaming syntax instead of the
id-tag/filename pairs that changesets use, so it's easier for a human
to read, but my argument is that it should be something like:
"FILE1" => "FILE2"
not
mv "FILE1" "FILE2"
]
-Miles
--
Is it true that nothing can be known? If so how do we know this? -Woody Allen
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] 'arch send' format, Matthieu Moy, 2004/04/16
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] 'arch send' format, Paul Mundt, 2004/04/16