[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] replay vs. update

From: Jan Hudec
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] replay vs. update
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:03:21 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.4i

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 22:37:28 -0700, Dustin Sallings wrote:
>       I see a lot of examples suggesting that replay and update can be 
>       used interchangeably for many applications.
>       Is there a brief ``rule of thumb'' that one can use to decide which 
> one to use when either seems appropriate?

For applying non-conflicting patches order does not matter, so they are
exactly equivalent. If the patches conflict, they differ in what is left
in the file and what in the reject.

If a conflict occurs, update rejects local changes while replay rejects
the archive changes. So it looks like update output is more useful.
However if you want to use some merging tool (eg diff3/merge,
vimdiff...), you will find, that replay leaves all important files handy
(.orig is your local version, head version is in a pristine tree).

Replay is a hell lot simpler operation. Replay is just a simple
patching. Update involves a full tree copy, diff and two patch

Summary: Forget that there is an update command.

                                                 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec 

reply via email to

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