[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: patch filenames
Alistair Crooks <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:20:13PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> 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.
> On the contrary, this approach works very well in practice.
> There are now tools to manage this sort of thing. Even when there
> aren't, all that is necessary is to delete the old patch, and append
> the new one on the end.
I would say, that this approach ("append at the end") is easier
to understand and easier to apply. It is easier to explain too,
thus it should be expected to be less error-prone.
> It is quite simple to use, and very effective.
In my opinion, we should program computers, not let computers
program us to perform boring work. Reviving old patch file just
because it changed the same file you need to fix now, isn't good.
Though it's less worse than having to spread functional change
across patch files to obey "one patch, one file" policy.
Main Index |
Thread Index |