On 10/18/05, Andy Tai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just curious what tool do you use, and how long does > it take to do this with that tool, as compared to tla.
I'm using cogito (a git frontend that behaves much like darcs/bzr). For the patch "trading" I'm using git-format-patch that exports the 500 commits to a directory, where each commit is a file. After that, I prune what commits I don't intend to merge, and edit any I need to, and then use git-applymbox which goes through them, and automates the review/editcommitmsg/merge-commit cycle. If there are no conflicts, it takes me a few second to give it a second review, and say yes. The merge+commit is _instantaneous_ (subsecond). If there are conflicts, I use emacs's diff mode. Of course, this kind of merge/cherrypick is still a heavy burden on the person who's running the merge, but git is pretty much instantaneous, which is incredibly good. I could just say "merge it all" and it'd take a couple of minutes to do the equivalent of a tla replay of the patchsets. Using tla and baz, merging this tree with the new upstream release was a huge undertaking http://mach.eduforge.org/cgi-bin/archzoom.cgi/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/moodle--eduforge--1.3.3 With our new infrastructure (visible at http://locke.catalyst.net.nz/gitweb?p=moodle.git;a=summary ) merging back and forth is so transparent that we are much more flexible pushing patches upstream and merging from upstream all the time. (Note: we are _also_ part of the upstream project, code travels both ways.) cheers, martin
_______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
