gnu-arch-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len


From: Andrea Arcangeli
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:22:24 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:02:49AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Bruce Stephens <address@hidden> writes:
> > > > [I'm not sure about BK's `renametool'; I _think_ it just gives you
> > > > a menu of old/new files and relies on a human operator to tell it
> > > > which files should be matched]
> > >
> > > Isn't that impossible?  That suggests a way in which arch and tools
> > > built on top of arch are _ahead_ of BK.  But the self-proclaimed
> > > leading expert in the field, LM, has assured us that arch is 3-5
> > > years _behind_ BK.  Oh, it's all so confusing.
> > 
> > I presume humans only need to be involved when you're trying to import
> > a new tarball or something (where BitKeeper can't know how files have
> > been moved around).
> 
> The much more common case is applying a patch from a non-BK-using
> developer (still the majority, I think) -- patches represent moved files
> as a big delete plus a big add.

With tla there's no reason for not using tla. When they send a patch I
simply add an automation in mutt that autoreply asking for a patchset
with an howto. if tla is better than patch and diff, then people will
use it and the problem will be void.

There should be a way to generate a "patchset" to send by email like if
it was a patch w/o forcing the author to merge via a normal tla archive
merge. The author should also be allowed to generate a patchset w/o
checking out a full linux tree with tla. It would be bad if I always had
to upload something on the net to send patches to people. I definitely
still want to be able to work by email by sending patchsets. Sending
patches isn't good because patches loses changelogs, metadata and they
get wrong the rename. Probably there's just a way to do this but I
didn't find it yet (I guess mkpatch/dopatch could be helpful here). The
way arch is designed really makes this thing trivial. I'm just unsure if
there's a way to generate something readable to send by email (if it's
readable by an human like a patch it would be great, lots of the auditing
happens in this stage, if it's readable even if bigger, it would be an
huge bonus and compression or anything is wasted time, you want to just
find the patch and patchset metadata inlined and uncompressed) 

Again, even in this case, I see taglines as a workaround, people
shouldn't send patches by email anymore, they should send patchsets,
which exactly means data changes + metadata changes. The metadata will
be at the very end of the email so you won't spend too much time on it.
And it should be something meaningful like "move foo.c foo2.c", not
tag-id xxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx which tells less to nothing to
me. Actually a patchset will be more readable than a patch with renames
going on.

Andrea - If you prefer relying on open source software, check these links:
            rsync.kernel.org::pub/scm/linux/kernel/bkcvs/linux-2.[45]/
            http://www.cobite.com/cvsps/




reply via email to

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