[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal
From: |
Thomas Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal |
Date: |
Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:56:46 -0800 (PST) |
> From: Matthew Dempsky <address@hidden>
> Thomas Lord <address@hidden> writes:
> > > From: Matthew Dempsky <address@hidden>
> > > One other thing to consider about merging submission branches is
that
> > > they all add a CONTRIBUTION-LOG file which would surely conflict
> > > unless you made sure to delete this after merging.
> >
> > > (Whether to interpret this as a problem with the proposal or the
idea
> > > of development lines merging submission branches I'm not sure
about
> > > yet.)
> > It's deliberate. The merging you do to merge a submission branch is,
> > in effect, a higher-level merge command than ordinary 'star-merge'.
> > You have to deal with 'CONTRIBUTION-LOG' and with pruning patch logs.
> > Eventually, this higher-level command should be built-in to 'tla' but,
> > for now, please just write yourself a little shell script.
> Right, I am using a script to automate that part.
> In that email, however, I was referring to people who are simply
> updating their trees (e.g. jblack, abentley, etc.) wrt the submission
> branches that have been merged into mainline now. They would want to
> be able to star-merge or replay those branches as well in case any
> changes were made in the submission branch (patch fixes or conflict
> resolution stuff).
Nah. Submission branches are (revisioned) changesets against a
well-defined mainline. That implies some constraints on how a
submission branch is sanely used. If they want something that is
'mainling + some-unmerged-submission-branches' they can constuct such
an entity by paying attention to '=merges'.
Submission branches are just versioned changesets. People shouldn't
be so scared of them. (Bwahaha :-)
-t
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Thomas Lord, 2004/11/01
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Matthew Dempsky, 2004/11/01
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Thomas Lord, 2004/11/01
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Yann Droneaud, 2004/11/01
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Thomas Lord, 2004/11/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Yann Droneaud, 2004/11/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Matthew Dempsky, 2004/11/11
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2004/11/12