[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Sample patch from Mercurial repository
From: |
KHMan |
Subject: |
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Sample patch from Mercurial repository |
Date: |
Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:09:42 +0800 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070802 SeaMonkey/1.1.4 |
grischka wrote:
> From: "KHMan":
> [snip snip]
>> As for changesets, my plan is to name them using the revision
>> numbers, like "cvs395.diff". I will keep a set of hg exports, like
>> "hg395.diff". This is to preserve commit order.
>
> Hm, I don't understand exactly. Why do we need two sets of files?
Okay, never mind then, I'll you send the Mercurial exports.
> Well, just had another idea. Instead of renaming the patches
> we could use a meta-text-file with descriptions and references
> like:
>
> patch: 395.diff
> shortname: <empty for now>
> description: <changelog entry here>
> link: <link into tinycc mail archive, if available>
>
> patch: 396.diff
> shortname:
> description: ...
> link: ...
>
> ....
>
> Then we would just edit that meta-file, move entries around etc,
> and, if useful, eventually with another script build a patch-file
> tree from that meta-file. Do you think your coming perl script
> could generate such meta-file along with the diffs? :-)
A lot of the info is in the extended commit message. I'll do that
and send you a bundle. If it is suitable, you can then post the
meta info to the list immediately.
> [snip snip]
>> The list only need to agree to keep pumping patches into the CVS,
>> in order to keep tcc in "virtually one piece".
>
> Well, I think we can and should present the edited meta-file to the
> list and have some discussion. Also we might still find other patches
> that Rob doesn't have yet. If we want to step towards distributed
> development then it is useful to do things in public.
Sure, no problem for me. I'll get right on to it.
--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia