[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal
From: |
Thomas Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:55:15 -0700 (PDT) |
> From: Matthieu Moy <address@hidden>
> > So: how about we modify the process so that we maintain a file
> > ./src/tla/=merged
> > Each time a (log-pruned) version is merged into tla, it's version name
> > will be appended to that file. No version name should appear twice
> > in that file.
> Wouldn't it be better to let (a future version of) tla maintain this
> file, and integrate it in the arch protocol instead of some user
> convention?
The GNU mainline integrator, according to the rules, only ever has to
perform two kinds of merges to deal with contributions. Both are
simple star-merges followed by log pruning. The log pruning varies
slightly in the two cases.
Yes, those merge operations can and eventually should be automated,
and they can update the =merged file accurately AND be
history-sensitive to the contents of that file.
Jblack's conundrum about branches A, B, and C in the OP of this
thread: C's problems would be solved by using these new mythical merge
commands (which are perhaps little more than two new options to
star-merge).
-t
- [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, James Blackwell, 2004/10/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Thomas Lord, 2004/10/27
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Matthieu Moy, 2004/10/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, John Meinel, 2004/10/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, James Blackwell, 2004/10/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, John Meinel, 2004/10/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Matthieu Moy, 2004/10/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Miles Bader, 2004/10/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Thomas Lord, 2004/10/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal,
Thomas Lord <=
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Aaron Bentley, 2004/10/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Aaron Bentley, 2004/10/27
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Matthieu Moy, 2004/10/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Aaron Bentley, 2004/10/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Matthieu Moy, 2004/10/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Aaron Bentley, 2004/10/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Matthieu Moy, 2004/10/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Aaron Bentley, 2004/10/28
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Mikhael Goikhman, 2004/10/28
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Thomas Lord, 2004/10/28