[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dyn
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic |
Date: |
04 Oct 2003 15:18:14 +0900 |
Andrea Arcangeli <address@hidden> writes:
> > The much more common case is applying a patch from a non-BK-using
> > developer (still the majority, I think) -- patches represent moved files
> > as a big delete plus a big add.
>
> With tla there's no reason for not using tla. When they send a patch I
> simply add an automation in mutt that autoreply asking for a patchset
> with an howto. if tla is better than patch and diff, then people will
> use it and the problem will be void.
I think patches will be around for a long time; the central developers
may stop using them, but such things don't go away quickly.
> Again, even in this case, I see taglines as a workaround, people
> shouldn't send patches by email anymore, they should send patchsets,
I wasn't talking about taglines, BTW I was talking about my
`tla-update-ids' script, which among other things handles automatic
detection of renamed explicitly-tagged files. So you can apply a patch,
run the script, and it will do the `tla move/add/remove's for you.
It occurs to me that perhaps it should have a `--no-add' option for
people like you that don't want to tag every file considered source.
-Miles
--
We have met the enemy... and he is us. -- Pogo
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Miles Bader, 2003/10/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Pau Aliagas, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Miles Bader, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Robert Collins, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Andrew Suffield, 2003/10/06
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/10/07
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Miles Bader, 2003/10/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Tom Lord, 2003/10/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Robin Farine, 2003/10/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Andrea Arcangeli, 2003/10/03
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic,
Miles Bader <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Andrea Arcangeli, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Davide Libenzi, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Davide Libenzi, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Robert Collins, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Andrea Arcangeli, 2003/10/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Zack Brown, 2003/10/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tom Lord, 2003/10/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Zack Brown, 2003/10/07