[Top][All Lists]
[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: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic |
Date: |
Sun, 5 Oct 2003 20:08:41 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 08:46:31PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > I think patches will be around for a long time; the central developers
> > may stop using them, but such things don't go away quickly.
>
> yes. Though the majority of patches don't involve renames.
It is nice to handle them correctly though -- and currently with BK, Linus
_does_ handle rename patches correctly (I was very impressed when I first saw
it).
> > It occurs to me that perhaps it should have a `--no-add' option for
> > people like you that don't want to tag every file considered source.
>
> that sounds a nice idea, thanks. Additionally I'd like to shortly review
> the changes it's doing before running the tla commands. To avoid the
> `cp x.c x.c.org; rm x.c` to be mistaken for a legitimate rename w/o me
> noticing about it.
Yes, a --dry-run option is a good idea too.
> I remeber Linus asking Andre to send him a script, not a patch, to
> create drivers/ide and to fill it moving files from drivers/block to
> drivers/ide, somewhere in between 2.2 and 2.4. Exactly to avoid applying
> absoltuely unreadable and very huge patches (huge because they duplicate
> info). This just shows how the 'patch/diff' is unusable anyways for those
> sort of changes, it's not that patch doesn't work w/o taglines, patch
> never worked, and it can't work, for these sort of changes.
It's not actually that bad, I think. Here's a sample session:
(1) ...receive giganto patch...
(2) patch < giganto.patch
(3) tla-update-ids
(4) tla what-changed
If you see funny output after step (3) or step (4), you can either fix it
directly, or just do `tla undo' and go back to an earlier step.
The advantage of receiving arch-specific patchs is that step (3) is
unnecessary, so you avoid any mistakes that script makes -- and of course the
weirder the changes, the more likely the script will fuck them up (for
instance moving a complete hierarchy will result in a lot of individual file
moves instead of a single directory move, which is probably what you want;
maybe this case could be auto-detected, but it's not entirely trivial to do
so).
But the bulk of the work is in reviewing the changes (for which the concise
output of `what-changed' is very useful)*, deciding if something is funny, and
fixing the patch if it is (of course in Linus's case, this involves just
dropping the patch the floor, so not much work really :-)
Of course it _is_ useful to avoid step (3), and the possibility of the script
screwing up, so an extended patch format is probably a good thing -- but I
don't think the lack of such a format is a show-stopper, or even a major
concern.
* Of course, the cleaner changeset resulting from an `extended patch' would
likely be easier to review too, if moved directories around or something...
-Miles
--
`...the Soviet Union was sliding in to an economic collapse so comprehensive
that in the end its factories produced not goods but bads: finished products
less valuable than the raw materials they were made from.' [The Economist]
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Miles Bader, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Robert Collins, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Andrew Suffield, 2003/10/06
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/10/07
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Miles Bader, 2003/10/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Tom Lord, 2003/10/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Robin Farine, 2003/10/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Andrea Arcangeli, 2003/10/03
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Andrea Arcangeli, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic,
Miles Bader <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Davide Libenzi, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Davide Libenzi, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Robert Collins, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Andrea Arcangeli, 2003/10/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Zack Brown, 2003/10/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tom Lord, 2003/10/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Zack Brown, 2003/10/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tom Lord, 2003/10/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/10/08