Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:00:03 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:34:47 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:43:48 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What I want to do is apply a patch to the common ancestry of a set
of branches but have the RCS system check that it doesn't break any
branch. Currently I have to apply the patch to one branch and then
replay,
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:47:59 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
If you had true parallel revisions then there should be a way to
edit both branches at the same time and check in changes to both
at the same time.
This is
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:34:47 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:47:59 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If you had true parallel revisions then there should be a way to
edit both branches
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:34:47 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:47:59 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If you had true parallel revisions then
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:00:03 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:34:47 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Err, So I apply a change to say, branch--foo. The I go to
branch--bar, and I say:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:00:03 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:34:47 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Err, So I apply a change to say,
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 03:07:27PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:20:23AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
In Ubuntu you have a parallel version. You split of from the main
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:47:59 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 03:07:27PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:20:23AM +0100, Goswin von
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
In Ubuntu you have a parallel version. You split of from the main
trunk but you follow parallel to it at a small distance. For every new
main version you want a new ubuntu version. Ubuntu versions aren't a
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:20:23AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
In stable/testing/unstable you have releases with a fixed version that
can only split of from the main trunk. Any change to stable/testing
MUST be made special for the old version in
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Release branch:
---+-+- sid
|s|e
|a|t
|r|c
|g|h
|e
Distribution filter: (with patches going both ways)
+--+--+--+--- Debian
\ \/\
+--+--+--+- Ubuntu
Branches don't
Hopefully the graphic above makes it clear why a branch isn't the most
helpfull construct for it. Unfortunately I know of no RCS that has
something better for this kind of parallel developement.
svk has nice ability to perform 'tag-less' merges.
I am yet to discover proper structuring for
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 15:23 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Branches don't work so well for ubuntu as you have to pull over the
changes from the main branch to the ubuntu branch on every
release. Which means (unneccessary) work.
It is work, yes, but in many cases it is necessary, and we do
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 03:07:27PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:20:23AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
In Ubuntu you have a parallel version. You split of from the main
trunk but you follow parallel to it at a
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Evil. Don't change control at build time.
Well, all GNOME packages update their control in the clean target, and
I think this is ok. The GStreamer packages update their packages in
a special maint
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
In Ubuntu you have a parallel version. You split of from the main
trunk but you follow parallel to it at a small distance. For every new
main version you want a new ubuntu version. Ubuntu versions aren't a
branch but rather a filter on top of
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:20:23AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
In stable/testing/unstable you have releases with a fixed version that
can only split of from the main trunk. Any change to stable/testing
MUST be made special for the old version in stable/testing and forks
off the main
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007, Øystein Gisnås wrote:
Is there a good way to let Maemo-specific packaging files coexist with
Debian unstable files in the upstream tree? Currently there is a
debian/ upstream, but it is Debian unstable specific. Btw tinymail is
not part of the official Debian Archive.
I
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007, Øystein Gisnås wrote:
Is there a good way to let Maemo-specific packaging files coexist with
Debian unstable files in the upstream tree? Currently there is a
debian/ upstream, but it is Debian unstable specific. Btw tinymail is
not
Hi Øystein,
Øystein Gisnås wrote:
Is there a good way to let Maemo-specific packaging files coexist with
Debian unstable files in the upstream tree? Currently there is a
debian/ upstream, but it is Debian unstable specific. Btw tinymail is
not part of the official Debian Archive.
I think the
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Evil. Don't change control at build time.
Well, all GNOME packages update their control in the clean target, and
I think this is ok. The GStreamer packages update their packages in
a special maint target which is manual; this works okish, but
Is there a good way to let Maemo-specific packaging files coexist with
Debian unstable files in the upstream tree? Currently there is a
debian/ upstream, but it is Debian unstable specific. Btw tinymail is
not part of the official Debian Archive.
The problem is that of maintaining packages files
23 matches
Mail list logo
