[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag? |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:27:15 -0700 (PDT) |
> From: Miles Bader <address@hidden>
> Tom Lord <address@hidden> writes:
> > > BTW, is it alright to use `tag' to create _occasional_ tagged
> > > versions in branch, e.g., base-0 = tag, patch-1 = patch, patch-2
> > > = patch, patch-3 = tag, ...? This seems convenient in some
> > > cases, but I vaguely recall a warning against it somewhere.
> > However, I wonder if in 9/10 of your occaisional cases, you wouldn't
> > rather `get' the thing you would tag, `sync-tree' with the version you
> > want to commit to, then commit.
> My reason for wanting to do this is this: I'd like to keep around
> branches for my own use (e.g., my `x' branch), whose contents are
> eventually merged back into my main branch, and basically the branch is
> then defunct. However later, I'd like to do the same thing again, and I
> don't particularly want to change the version number (which would
> probably be the `kosher' way to do this), e.g. reuse the same
> branch/version. In this case, it's likely that the delta between the
> last patch of the previously defunct `x' branch and the new hip `x'
> branch is pretty large; since really I just want the new patch level to
> be a straight copy of the main branch, a tag/link is the obvious thing
> to do.
Bah. It sounds like you are wanting to use `tag' to save some
archive disk space. I think that's silly. It _should_ at least
_fairly_ silly to you now and, in 2-3 years, when you have a better
box, it should be completely silly.
Don't use `tag' just to avoid a large `changeset', imo.
> BTW, what's the problem with doing replay or whatever in this situation?
> It seems like a replaying a continuation changeset in an existing
> project tree should just delete the entire project tree contents, and
> then checkout new sources; does it not do this?
No, it doesn't. There's two parts to a continuation revision.
There's the pointer to some other revision -- the revision named in
`tag' -- the revision named in the archive's CONTINUATION file. And
then there's a changeset on top of that.
`replay' replays the changeset and ignores the CONTINUATION file.
As a vague sort of suggestion: the design space of "merge operators"
is huge. Really, really, huge. and there's no single one, as far
as I can tell, that always does The Right Thing -- it's more like you
have a toolbox of merge operators and have to have the skill to pick
out the one you want. So: if you want something that resembles
replay but differs in some ways -- well, that's how we got
`--skip-present', for example.
> I guess one oddity would be that such a changeset would not be
> (easily) reversable, but I'd think that's not usually a problem.
There is no context-independent "usual problem" wrt merge operators,
as far as I can tell. That's why the tutorial has the structure it
does. With a little bit of constraints, _then_ "usual problems"
arise and have solutions:
The tutorial describes particular disciplined patch flows (but doesn't
call them that since people balk at the mention of "discipline").
So, you get "The update/commit Style of Cooperation" and "Development
Branches -- The star-merge Style of Cooperation" and (not in the
tutorial but mentioned on the list): "Using Multiple Branches Yourself
-- the Prism Merge Style of Hacking" and "Idempotent Merging -- The
--skip-present Style of Cooperation".
So, if you have "The Miles Bader Style" and need some options/commands
for it .......
The Maritial Arts of Revision Control,
-t
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, (continued)
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Miles Bader, 2003/09/19
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Robert Anderson, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Robert Anderson, 2003/09/19
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Miles Bader, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Tom Lord, 2003/09/19
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Miles Bader, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?,
Tom Lord <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Tom Lord, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Robert Collins, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Tom Lord, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Robert Collins, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Andrew Suffield, 2003/09/20
- merge algorithms (Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?), Doran Moppert, 2003/09/20
- Re: merge algorithms (Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?), Andrew Suffield, 2003/09/20
- Re: merge algorithms (Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?), Doran Moppert, 2003/09/20
- Re: merge algorithms (Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?), Andrew Suffield, 2003/09/20
- Re: merge algorithms (Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?), Robert Collins, 2003/09/20