[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] reminder: winning smallish project

From: Robert Anderson
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] reminder: winning smallish project
Date: 19 Sep 2003 18:52:47 -0700

On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 16:49, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 16:03, Robert Anderson wrote:
> > Looking for a fun sure-fire arch contribution?
> > 
> > Implement a --no-patch-log option to dopatch (and if you get that far,
> > mkpatch).
> > 
> > This would ignore patch-log entries for the application (or generation)
> > of patchsets.  This would be especially handy for use in combination
> > with the --reverse flag to dopatch.
> > 
> > For example, if you want to revert the effect of patch-7, and commit the
> > resulting change, you'd like to do:
> > 
> > tla get-patch cat--branch--0--patch-7
> > tla dopatch --reverse cat--branch--0--patch-7.patches
> > 
> > But this also removes the patch-log entries for patch-7, which is
> > definitely not what you want.  Rather, you ought to be able to do:
> Why is it 'definitely not what you want' ?
> I backed out colin walters explicit commit behaviour patch in precisely
> that fashion.

Maybe more precise is "it's never what I want when I do it."  The patch
is still there, it just happens to be that another patch inverts it.

A consequence of that is that I don't want merges from lines containing
that patch to try to re-apply it.  And why should they?  It's already


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]