Re: hggroup available in graphics archive

[Michael Goffioul]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Thomas Weber
<address@hidden> wrote:
>  > If I understand correctly, going with the MQ way while still keeping the
>  > possibility to share an archive and make it public would mean the
>  > following:
>  > 1) the graphics archive would be a clone (at some point in time) of the
>  > main octave archive, along with a set of patches that are under
>  > revision (the patches are unapplied to the graphics archive)
>  > 2) we never commit the patches ourself to the archive (hg qdelete -r), but
>  > we wait for the patch inclusion in the main archive, then synchronize the
>  > graphics archive, then "hg qdelete"
>  > 3) people wanting to access the graphics code would have to grab the
>  > graphics archive and "hg qpush -a" to apply the patches, then compile
>  >
>  > Am I right?
>
>  Yes.
>
>  I don't think you gain much that way. If a qpatch is not fine-grained
>  enough, you have to split it by hand. That's about the same as pulling
>  the same changes as a normal patch and removing the stuff you don't want
>  by hand and commit a second patch afterwards.

If Shai and John agree, then we can try this way of working. Of course,
we can only start this after an initial merge (some rejected changes will
then have to be converted into qpatch). Then the graphics archive will
have to be re-cloned.

Michael.