Re: [Quilt-dev] Rename patch?

[Jean Delvare]

[Jean Delvare]
> I took my chance on it. Unsurprisingly, it ends up as a simplified
> version of the fork patch. Differences:
> 1* Rename can operate on any patch, not only the topmost one. This
> includes unapplied patches.
> 2* The new name must be provided, it is never guessed.
> 3* Of course, the patch file is renamed instead of being duplicated.

[Andreas Gruenbacher]
> Can we unify fork and rename? I'm thinking of one script for both that
> checks  under which name it was called. The functionality of the two
> should be _very_  close, the only difference being that fork copies
> the patch file, while  rename moves it.

My list above shows more differences. Fork applies on the topmost patch
only, while rename supports named patches. Fork can guess the name of
the new patch, while rename currently doesn't - but that one might be
changed.

I am not certain there is much to win by merging both patches. They are
rather small (nothing like pop or push). The common part is the same
common part all functions have, nothing really special. As a matter of
fact, the unified diff between the rename and fork scripts currently has
more lines than either script. This might be improved by dropping a
couple trivial differences, but not by that much.

So I might reconsider if we add the new-patch-name-guessing feature to
rename, but for now I would keep rename a separate patch.

[Jean Delvare]
> I think I now understand the point of the fork command, but still
> believe that it should be better documented.

[Andreas Gruenbacher]
> Documentation improvements are just as welcome as code improvements ;)

As I said, I would contribute a documentation patch for this, but I'd
need someone who knows the history and typical use of the fork command
to tell me about it. Documenting the way I think fork works won't be
really useful, especially if I happen to have guessed wrong.

[Andreas Gruenbacher]
> Sorry I won't look at it right now; not enough time :(

No problem, we're in no hurry.

[Andreas Gruenbacher]
> The user may have specified a path relative to $QUILT_PATCHES/ (as
> when using  tab completion). We always allow this, and strip off this
> prefix.
> (...)
> The patch may exist in the series file and in .pc/, but not in
> patches/;  that's a valid state: the actual patch file doesn't exist
> before ``quilt  refresh'' is run.

OK, thanks for the clarifications, it all makes sense to me now :)

[Andreas Gruenbacher]
> Thanks for looking into this!

My pleasure.

BTW, if you want me to be listed as a quilt developer on Savannah, feel
free to proceed.

Thanks,
-- 
Jean Delvare