[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal
From: |
Matthew Dempsky |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal |
Date: |
Sun, 31 Oct 2004 01:02:25 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
Aaron Bentley <address@hidden> writes:
> Thomas Lord wrote:
>> > From: Aaron Bentley <address@hidden>
>> > Thomas Lord wrote:
>> > > > From: Aaron Bentley <address@hidden>
>> > > > One of the features of Arch I really like is the
>> history-sensitive > > > merging. This process breaks
>> history-sensitive merge commands.
>> > > That is a complete misapprehension.
>> > No, that is totally accurate. The process that Matthew
>> Dempsky used to > commit patch-7 breaks all conceivable
>> history-based merge commands, and > requires a human to
>> determine its origins.
>> You're full of it.
>
> Unless you can demonstrate that the information is not lost, *you're*
> full of it. If there's no history, there can't be history-based
> commands.
>
> Tell me exactly how I can determine that patch-7 is derived from
> address@hidden/tla--devo--1.2--patch-25 and
> address@hidden/tlasrc--devel--0.2--patch-22
> without recource to human intelligence.
For what it's worth, patch-7 was generated by star-merging
address@hidden/tla--get-changeset-fix--1.3. Presumably under
the modifications to the process Tom has recommended, you would be
able to additionally know that. (Right now that's not evident,
however.)
I expect the necessary changes can be made by simply commiting a patch
to add =merges with all the versions I've merged patches from, or if
it's necessary to know in the individual patches I can undo all the
work I've done right now and remerge them.
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, (continued)
- [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
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Aaron Bentley, 2004/10/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Thomas Lord, 2004/10/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Aaron Bentley, 2004/10/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal,
Matthew Dempsky <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Aaron Bentley, 2004/10/31
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Florian Weimer, 2004/10/28