Re: [Gnu-arch-users] patch-logs removed by star-merge?

[Aaron Bentley]

Jani Monoses wrote:
> > > So now tla logs does not show some patches when I'm in B's working tree.
> >
> > I'm guessing you're referring to my patch-(9-11). 
>
>
> Actually A and B are branches in a non-tla project I work on.
>
> So is it normal that patch-logs get moved out of the tree?

Well, it can happen.  Not usually desirable, but...

If B has cherrypicked patches from you, star-merge draws the wrong 
conclusions.  It assumes B merged everything from you, and then removed 
some of the patches.  So when you merge from B, it does what it thinks B 
did, and removes the patches.  Replay --skip-present may be more 
suitable for this situation.

In detail:

For this purpose, we can pretend that star-merge is a wrapper for 
apply-delta that computes FROM-REVISION using the merge history.  The 
star-merge REVISION/VERSION parameter is used as the apply-delta 
TO-REVISION.

First, we pick a common ancestor.  This is either the last revision of A 
that B contains a patchlog for, or the last revision of A that contains 
a patchlog for B.

So let's say B--patch-51 adds a patchlog for A--patch-42, but 
A--patch-42 was cherrypicked, so A-41 and A-40 aren't present.  The 
latest revision of B is patch-53

Now we do "apply-delta A--patch-42 B--patch-53".  But part of the delta 
between A--patch-42 and B--patch-53 is that B--patch-53 doesn't have the 
changes in A--patch-41 or A--patch-40.  So the result of apply-delta is 
to remove those changes, patchlogs and all.

> Is it possible that tla logs without the -merges flag (so the patchlogs) do
> not reflect what changes I made in time in my tree?

The way you create your patchlogs won't affect the behavior of 
star-merge or log-for-merge.  (Unless you do something silly like add 
your own new-patches header.)

Aaron
--
Aaron Bentley
Director of Technology
Panometrics, Inc.