[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/net/ocamlnet
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:17:09AM +0200, John Marino wrote:
> > > If pkgsrc was using a different version control than CVS (something
> > > like git and the ilk), then reviewing per-patch history on the fly
> > > would be a cinch. Rather than use a better VC (and I've heard many of
> > > you complain about CVS), we change the process to work around its
> > > limitations.
For the record, I don't understand this claim. You can do "cvs log
patches/patch-aa" or "cvs annotate patches/patch-aa" just as easily
with CVS as you can with git or any other such tool.
>> ...also if we were going to upgrade tools and improve procedures,
>> moving to per-topic instead of per-file patches would buy a lot more
>> bang for the buck.
> I think that would be a big mistake. I could point out hundreds of
> patched files that were patched for many reasons at different
> points in time, with the current version of the patch being the
Yes, and that's why per-topic patches are better.
> Per topic would have to be based on the preceding
> intermediate version of the patch, not original file. There's
> order issues,
Patches are already applied in order.
> perhaps comprehensive issue (especially if a later
> patch erases an earlier patch),
That's a maintenance issue, and not a major one.
> and of course it would be a nightmare to migrate to a new version
> of the software. All the per-topic patches would need migrating
Less of a nightmare than it currently is for packages with a lot of
Ever used quilt or mq?
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |