"Sittampalam, Ganesh" <[email protected]> writes:
> Trent W. Buck wrote: >> Ganesh Sittampalam <[email protected]> writes: >>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Trent W. Buck wrote: >>>> [...] patches that don't apply cleanly are automatically set to >>>> needs-amend? >>> >>> I think the difficulty here is uniquely identifying the correct >>> attached bundle to apply, once a patch has been amended or similar. >> >> I was assuming that this was happening as the mail came in, before it >> got injected into roundup. It would use the first MIME attachment of >> type text/x-darcs-patch (or whatever "darcs send" uses).[...] > > But the end result of testing the patch needs to affect roundup > somehow - I guess you are implying that it should always be the latest > patch that controls the roundup status? Good point; I was assuming that. After all, each patch object (in roundup) can only have one status, so it didn't make sense to me to send new bundles to an existing roundup patch object, unless they were amendments to the previous bundle in that object. > Also, this idea doesn't work so well for doing something long-running > or possibly unreliable like building and running the tests. Granted. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
