[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: mtn split (Was: [Monotone-devel] Best practice using monotone)
From: |
Chad Walstrom |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: mtn split (Was: [Monotone-devel] Best practice using monotone) |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:22:28 -0500 |
So, if I'm following this correctly and referencing the DaggyFixes
page, what we have here is something like this:
A--B--C
Where A is the buggy revision, and B is the revision containing the 5
bug fixes. According to Justin's comment, which I think is right on,
you need to back out the changes in B completely.
mtn disapprove B
This will "internally create a new revision with the reverse diff as a
child of B". So we get,
A--B--C
`--BR
where B2 has the same contents as A? Then we merge,
A--B--C-,
`--BR---D
We then start committing fixes individually in linear fashion, because
you can always use the daggy-fix pattern to back out changes that
don't make the grade.
A--B--C-,
`--BR---D--E--F--G--H--I
Turns out that fix F didn't work at all...
mtn disapprove F
mtn merge
Gets us:
A--B--C-, ,------FR------,
`--BR---D--E--F--G--H--I--J
--
Chad Walstrom <address@hidden> http://www.wookimus.net/
assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
- RFC: mtn split (Was: [Monotone-devel] Best practice using monotone), Hugo Cornelis, 2006/08/24
- Re: RFC: mtn split (Was: [Monotone-devel] Best practice using monotone), Justin Patrin, 2006/08/24
- Re: RFC: mtn split (Was: [Monotone-devel] Best practice using monotone), Hugo Cornelis, 2006/08/24
- Re: RFC: mtn split (Was: [Monotone-devel] Best practice using monotone), Justin Patrin, 2006/08/24
- Re: RFC: mtn split (Was: [Monotone-devel] Best practice using monotone), Hugo Cornelis, 2006/08/24
- Re: RFC: mtn split (Was: [Monotone-devel] Best practice using monotone),
Chad Walstrom <=
- Re: RFC: mtn split (Was: [Monotone-devel] Best practice using monotone), Chad Walstrom, 2006/08/24
- Re: RFC: mtn split (Was: [Monotone-devel] Best practice using monotone), Andy Jones, 2006/08/24
- Re: RFC: mtn split (Was: [Monotone-devel] Best practice using monotone), Andy Jones, 2006/08/24
- Re: RFC: mtn split (Was: [Monotone-devel] Best practice using monotone), Chad Walstrom, 2006/08/24
- Re: RFC: mtn split (Was: [Monotone-devel] Best practice using monotone), Andy Jones, 2006/08/24
- Re: RFC: mtn split (Was: [Monotone-devel] Best practice using monotone), Daniel Carosone, 2006/08/24
- Re: RFC: mtn split (Was: [Monotone-devel] Best practice using monotone), Nathaniel Smith, 2006/08/24
- Re: RFC: mtn split (Was: [Monotone-devel] Best practice using monotone), Ethan Blanton, 2006/08/26
- Re: RFC: mtn split (Was: [Monotone-devel] Best practice using monotone), Derek Scherger, 2006/08/27
- Re: RFC: mtn split (Was: [Monotone-devel] Best practice using monotone), Nathaniel Smith, 2006/08/27