octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: strings assignment fix


From: Jaroslav Hajek
Subject: Re: strings assignment fix
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 19:34:32 +0200

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:52 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> On  1-Oct-2008, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
>
> | For a single patch, yes. For a series of patches, this is problematic.
>
> Why?  I thought mq was designed to solve that problem as it lets you
> keep the patches separate, apply one or more of them at a time, update
> them so they apply cleanly to the current sources, etc.
>
> | For instance, I'm working on the optimization functions in my archive:
> | http://hg.tw-math.de/highegg
> |
> | what should I do once we agree to include these changes (or some of
> | them)? The simplest thing for me is to pull, merge & push.
>
> If you are using mq, you would first pop your changes, then pull and
> update, then push your changes and fix them if conflicts were
> generated by the pull+update step, then qrefresh, qdelete and finally
> push to the remote archive.
>

OK, but you need to do this sequentially for each changeset. And if
they are not independent, you may end up fixing the same line over and
over again after each qpush. If there's a lot of patches, this can
become cumbersome. The solution is probably to fold them
intelligently.
I'm not sure what will happen, if you do, for instance, hg qpush
--force --all and ignore the intermediate rejects - perhaps that's a
way to go, but it still isn't anywhere as easy as merging.


-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]