[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] feature plan -- merge request headers

From: Tom Lord
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] feature plan -- merge request headers
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 17:12:07 -0700 (PDT)

    > From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>

    > > Now someone can fix a trivial bug in arch with:

    > >         % address@hidden

    > >         % tla get $LORD/dists--devo--1.0 wd
    > >         % cd wd
    > >         % tla buildcfg
    > >         % cd src/tla
    > >         % tla fork bug123
    > >         [hack hack hack]
    > >         [test test]
    > >         [hack]
    > >         [test]
    > >         [hack]
    > >         % tla commit --announce

    > But doesn't the `fork' step require write access to the
    > address@hidden archive?  This is more a question about `fork' I guess,
    > but mypoint is that it's important for `fork' to be able to make a fork in
    > some other archive, which also means that it can't so easily benefit from
    > the "downstream branch" feature (unless that feature is extended so it can
    > relate two branches in two different archives).

No, `fork' in that case would create the new branch in the user's
default archive.

Or something like that, anyway --- it is a bit awkward that so many
other commands want to default to using the archive of the project
tree in `pwd` but fork is one that shouldn't.  Or should it?


reply via email to

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