[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal
From: |
Matthieu Moy |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:24:32 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) |
Aaron Bentley <address@hidden> writes:
> These problems do not necessarily go away if we change to a
> one-version-per-merge model. It's quite likely that my submissions
> will not be originated in the version that I submit for merging.
That partly solves the problem for the development of tla, but I think
other projects need something about patch log pruning, and I don't
think that's a good idea to force all projects to use the same model.
> Let's end with a threat: if you go ahead with =merged, I will do my
> level best to support it in Fai. For cases where the merged version
> has patchlogs in the tree, I can implement a "replay --skip-present"
> workalike that will use the changeset contents to determine whether a
> patch should be applied. That will make Fai a significantly less
> broken tool for developing tla than tla itself. You don't really want
> that, do you? :-)
I also don't want that because this would mean either to re-implement
that in Xtla, or use Fai as a back-end for Xtla.
--
Matthieu
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, (continued)
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Matthieu Moy, 2004/10/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, John Meinel, 2004/10/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, James Blackwell, 2004/10/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, John Meinel, 2004/10/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Matthieu Moy, 2004/10/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Miles Bader, 2004/10/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Thomas Lord, 2004/10/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Thomas Lord, 2004/10/28
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Aaron Bentley, 2004/10/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Aaron Bentley, 2004/10/27
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal,
Matthieu Moy <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Aaron Bentley, 2004/10/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Matthieu Moy, 2004/10/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Aaron Bentley, 2004/10/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Matthieu Moy, 2004/10/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Aaron Bentley, 2004/10/28
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Mikhael Goikhman, 2004/10/28
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Thomas Lord, 2004/10/28
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Aaron Bentley, 2004/10/28
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Thomas Lord, 2004/10/28
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Aaron Bentley, 2004/10/28