Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: hmm. an alternative to a new maintainer. Hire your manager.

[Martin Langhoff]

On 10/18/05, Andy Tai <address@hidden> wrote:
> Just curious what tool do you use, and how long does
> it take to do this with that tool, as compared to tla.

I'm using cogito (a git frontend that behaves much like darcs/bzr).
For the patch "trading" I'm using git-format-patch that exports the
500 commits to a directory, where each commit is a file. After that, I
prune what commits I don't intend to merge, and edit any I need to,
and then use git-applymbox which goes through them, and automates the
review/editcommitmsg/merge-commit cycle.

If there are no conflicts, it takes me a few second to give it a
second review, and say yes. The merge+commit is _instantaneous_
(subsecond). If there are conflicts, I use emacs's diff mode.

Of course, this kind of merge/cherrypick is still a heavy burden on
the person who's running the merge, but git is pretty much
instantaneous, which is incredibly good. I could just say "merge it
all" and it'd take a couple of minutes to do the equivalent of a tla
replay of the patchsets.

Using tla and baz, merging this tree with the new upstream release was
a huge undertaking
http://mach.eduforge.org/cgi-bin/archzoom.cgi/address@hidden/moodle--eduforge--1.3.3

With our new infrastructure (visible at
http://locke.catalyst.net.nz/gitweb?p=moodle.git;a=summary ) merging
back and forth is so transparent that we are much more flexible
pushing patches upstream and merging from upstream all the time.
(Note: we are _also_ part of the upstream project, code travels both
ways.)

cheers,


martin