[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: patch filenames
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 01:50:01PM +0000, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 01:30:12PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 12:50:44AM +0100, Roland Illig wrote:
> > > 3. Group functional changes into one patch file:
> > Absolutely rejected. This is a nightmare for maintainance.
> I disagree, having designed and used a packaging system
> which used this infrastructure. It works very well, is
> kind to the SCM, and is efficient to the point of brevity.
I regulary have to deal with files that are patched already. Adding
order means that you can't just add the change and diff again, you have
to consider whether you should modify one of the existing patch
fragments in which case you have to regen all later patches. We do *not*
have the tools for this.
I also don't buy the argument that it makes pushing patches upstream
easier. From the long list Roland posted, a lot of them are either
essentially dead (xview) or notorous for not accepting proper patches
for years (mozilla).
Main Index |
Thread Index |