James Carlson wrote:
Richard Lowe writes:
Mike Kupfer wrote:
"RL" == Richard Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RL> That at most a single delta contained (as comments, at least) one CR
RL> and one ARC case.
I think we want to allow multiple ARC cases. It's not unusual for a
project, particularly a large or complex one, to have multiple ARC
cases. The ksh93 project is working on at least its third ARC case.
Yes, with hindsight the logic above is obviously broken, I don't know
what (or if) I was thinking. Sorry.
I have to dissent from the rest of the commentary on this thread,
because I think the above comment about ARC cases is equally
applicable to CRs as well.
Yes, I meant my logic in general, not just in that specific respect.
[snip]
I think one CR per changeset may be an "ideal," it certainly seems
useful for separable things that are nonetheless putback together, but
it'd be wrong as a hard requirement.
I agree with that, yes.
So, aside from my lapse in sanity that spawned this little offshoot,
what are we left with?
If an ideal would be unrelated fixes going back as separate changesets
(even if in the same changegroup), does that leave us with deltachk
having no purpose, as multiple deltas per-putback would be under that
logic acceptable with Hg?
-- Rich
_______________________________________________
tools-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
