On Aug 23 23:52, Mark Geisert wrote: > Mark Geisert clarifies what he wrote: > > I was also mightily confused by Charles' apparent use of git *and* a > > huge patch file. > > That's not fair. Charles used cvs; his cygutils repository was converted to > git and I've been maintaining it since the conversion. My confusion is in > whether updates are totally described by git commits or whether they > also/instead appear in the huge patch file. This is an internal issue that > I need to resolve.
Ideally the public repo follows the development closely, including bugs and mistakes. We all learn only from those :) IMHO it could be pretty helpful to feed the changes from the patch file in small chunks into the repo, and then your follow up patches and reversions afterwards. So a history stays visible, even if partially faked. In case of cygutils, given how this is a Cygwin-only tool and we have full control over it, the public repo should be the one-stop-shop for code. There's no reason for a non-git patch file at all these days. > I apologize that problematic cygutils builds have been released due to my > not fully understanding the subtleties of Charles' build factory. No reason to apologize! You wrote in your mail how Chuck had his stuff in CVS originally. Additionally the stuff wasn't packed with cygport at one point. All this had a big influence on how the files were packed. I, for one, am grateful that you pull the package into modern times. > There's an upcoming cygutils-1.4.16-5 that's intended to be a clean update > that fixes the reported problems in -3 and -4test. Once that is out, the > public repository for cygutils will be updated in short order. > Thanks, Thanks to you, Corinna -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
