Re: [Gnu-arch-users] --forward mostly harmless

[James Blackwell]

Miles wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 07:58:28PM -0400, James Blackwell wrote:
>> > I'm totally confused by this.  What do you mean by "pure changeset"?
>> 
>> Pardon. I meant impure merges, which is a combination of somebody else's
>> changeset(s) and local changes in one commit.
>

> Ok, but I don't see (1) what this has to do with the issue of
> eliminating duplicates (such duplicates almost always occur when
> merging a changeset that was previously applied through a different
> merge path, not from local duplicate changes), and (2) how it's
> possible to automatically detect such a thing at merge time anyway.
>
> Maybe I just don't see your point yet.

Well, if we only did pure-merges, we could easily detect duplicates by
examining whether or not the patchlog existed. But since we allow impure
merges as well, we can't really tell whether or not a patch really has
been applied.

Sometimes, during my more insane moments, I start to wonder why we don't
package two tarballs in a changeset; one tarball would be the pure
merges, and the other tarball would be the local changes. Then I wake up
and remember why its not that easy. :)

-- 
James Blackwell          Try something fun: For the next 24 hours, give
Smile more!              each person you meet a compliment!

GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400