On Feb 04, 2011, at 10:22 AM, John Arbash Meinel wrote: >d) How often is it that patches are directly layered on top of > each other (textually)? So patch 1 makes it 'hello\nworld\n' and > patch 2 changes it to "hello world\n". Or some other "patch 1 must \ > be applied before patch 2 makes *any* sense"
I think it's fairly common that patches are layered. Certainly the ui for quilt implies a strong stacked relationship between the patches. > Because if they all are textually different, then it is strictly > redundant. But otherwise it is possible for one to introduce state > that another mutates, which wouldn't be reflected in the working > state. > >e) looms, still a bit of a question how this interacts with everything > else. I'd say, "not so well" ;) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/Documentation/PatchSystem >1) As I understand it, most people are in favor of *not* versioning the > .pc directory. So that when you do "bzr branch lp:ubuntu/foo" you'll > get a tree with: I agree with James that 1) the .pc directory should not be versioned, and 2) we want to keep the property of branch-and-hack, meaning all patches are already applied in the source branch. >All this may change again if we switch the importer to use looms, since >then you can do stuff like merge the patches one-by-one up the stack >until you get to the top, without having to deal with conflicts in .diff >format. It'll be really nice if I can work on a quilt3 package with just moving up and down the threads. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
