[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: --forward mostly harmless
From: |
Harald Meland |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: --forward mostly harmless |
Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:24:11 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
[Miles Bader]
> If star-merge had a `--commit-if-pure' option, which would
>
> (1) Check the pre-merge tree for changes, and if any are found turn
> off the `commit flag'
>
> (2) Make sure that _all_ patch-logs contained the being-merged changeset
> (even those that are already present in the project tree) have a
> "Pure-Merge:" header. (if not, turn off the commit flag)
Wouldn't requiring such a header raise a chicken-and-egg problem?
Whose responsibility is it to add such headers to the revisions you're
trying to merge?
Is it part of your design that this variant of star-merge won't work
on any tree in which *any* changeset representing "hacking"
(i.e. changesets that are actual code improvements, without which the
point of having merging functionality becomes moot) is present, unless
these also have the Pure-Merge: header (presumably due to it being
added by hand (or, in your case, by the cvs-to-tla gateway)) ?
> (3) For each new patch-log in the being-merged changeset (those that
> aren't already in the project tree), make sure it points back to an
> existing patch-log via the "New-patches:" header (possibly
> transitively; you already know they're all `pure' from step [2]).
> (if not, turn off the commit flag)
>
> (4) If the commit flag is still on at this point, do sync-tree instead
> of merging the changeset, and commit the result.
That is, mark the new revisions in the to-be-merged changeset as
merged (by having sync-tree add their patch-logs), but don't actually
include the non-patchlog changes in the to-be-merged changeset?
I don't see what purpose this would serve...
> (5) If the commit flag is off, printing a message and merge as usual
> without committing
>
> This seems much safer than --skip-if-present, and seems like it would work
> as intended for my usual scenario.
>
> -Miles
--
Harald
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] --forward mostly harmless, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] --forward mostly harmless, David Allouche, 2004/09/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] --forward mostly harmless, James Blackwell, 2004/09/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] --forward mostly harmless, Miles Bader, 2004/09/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] --forward mostly harmless, James Blackwell, 2004/09/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] --forward mostly harmless, Miles Bader, 2004/09/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] --forward mostly harmless, James Blackwell, 2004/09/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] --forward mostly harmless, Miles Bader, 2004/09/13
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: --forward mostly harmless, Miles Bader, 2004/09/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: --forward mostly harmless,
Harald Meland <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: --forward mostly harmless, Tom Lord, 2004/09/14
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] --forward mostly harmless, Patrick Mauritz, 2004/09/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] --forward mostly harmless, James Blackwell, 2004/09/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] --forward mostly harmless, Patrick Mauritz, 2004/09/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] --forward mostly harmless, Tom Lord, 2004/09/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] --forward mostly harmless, James Blackwell, 2004/09/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] --forward mostly harmless, Miles Bader, 2004/09/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] --forward mostly harmless, Tom Lord, 2004/09/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] --forward mostly harmless, Matthew Dempsky, 2004/09/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] --forward mostly harmless, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2004/09/14