Max, good day. Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 08:30:16AM +0100, Max Laier wrote: > On Monday 01 December 2008 07:07:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > * http://wiki.freebsd.org/LocalMercurial > > > > This seems less of a resource hog, and (if I am understanding > > matters correctly) is able to start from the installed /usr/src/... > > rather than requiring the would-be hacker to download a redundant > > instance, but I was concerned that the page may not be up to date > > with current FreeBSD development methodology (e.g. csup vs cvsup). > > If you want to contribute back, this is *not* the way to go. Patches from > anything other than SVN and maybe CVS are mostly useless.
May be I am missing something, but what's wrong with the patches from
other VCS, providing that with Subversion you can exchange only by the
plain diffs? Yes, Git/Mercurial patches should be applied with 'patch
-p1', but that's all. Subversion has no notion simular to 'git
format-patch' and 'git am', if I am not messing the things up, so the
only way to exchange with others are the patches themselves.
> The local hg/git
> approach is nice if you are already familiar with hg or git and just want to
> keep some patch sets for yourself. If you are looking to keep/develop a patch
> set and eventually share it with the world, svn or svk is the way to go.
The only issue I do see is about '$FreeBSD$', but plain Subversion
clients shouldn't mess with it. If person has commit privileges to the
FreeBSD repository, then yes, probably Subversion will be fine (but
there are git-svn and hgsvn, so locally user can work with the different
VCS even in this case).
Do I missing some important thing here?
Thanks!
--
Eygene
_ ___ _.--. #
\`.|\..----...-'` `-._.-'_.-'` # Remember that it is hard
/ ' ` , __.--' # to read the on-line manual
)/' _/ \ `-_, / # while single-stepping the kernel.
`-'" `"\_ ,_.-;_.-\_ ', fsc/as #
_.-'_./ {_.' ; / # -- FreeBSD Developers handbook
{_.-``-' {_/ #
pgpSsbzOpdPqq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
