[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Fast commits
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Fast commits |
Date: |
04 Apr 2004 19:32:22 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
>>> I think the answer lies in redundancy: the current structure with
>>> {arch}/.../patch-log/patch-N files would work just as before.
>>> But we could also represent the same info with file with names
>>> {arch}/.../patch-log/patch-N-M.
>> Hmmm, that's clever....
> This might work out pretty cleanly.
> In essense, mkpatch and dopatch would:
> 1) maintain an index file of the virtual patch-log contents under
> {arch}
Why?
It's not needed now and wouldn't been needed with my proposal either AFAICT.
Basically neither mkpatch nor dopatch would need to be changed...
weeellll:
The problems I can see with my approach are the following:
- Add patch-N-M to a tree that already has it: the new file's content
should be the same, so it should be trivial to resolve the "conflict".
This situation already exists, although my proposal might make it happen
in a few new cases.
- remove patch-N (or patch-N-M) from a tree that doesn't have it.
This situation also already exists, but now it gets a bit trickier
because resolving the conflict can become less trivial since the tree
might have patch-N "pruned" in patch-A-B, so we may have to take special
steps to resolve such "remove an non-existing file" conflicts.
- remove patch-N (or patch-N-M) in a tree that does have it but that also
has patch-A-B where N is between A and B. Now, this is getting ugly
because we have to figure out whether the removal of file patch-N
is due to pruning (i.e. the patch is still present but in another file)
or not in order to know whether we should also adjust patch-A-B (as well
as any other patch file that contains N),
OK, well, still not completely trivial.
Stefan
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] graphical merges, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] graphical merges, Juliusz Chroboczek, 2004/04/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] graphical merges, Matthew Dempsky, 2004/04/05
- [Gnu-arch-users] Smart merging [was: graphical merges], Juliusz Chroboczek, 2004/04/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Fast commits, Robin Farine, 2004/04/03
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Fast commits, Stefan Monnier, 2004/04/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Fast commits, Miles Bader, 2004/04/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Fast commits, Tom Lord, 2004/04/04
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Fast commits,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Fast commits, Tom Lord, 2004/04/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Fast commits, Robin Farine, 2004/04/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Fast commits, Colin Walters, 2004/04/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Fast commits, Miles Bader, 2004/04/03