On 16/05/10 18:51, sc wrote:
On Sunday 16 May 2010 11:09:15 am Tony Mechelynck wrote:
hashes are carried over (the short hash for Bram's vim73
parent to my latest merge is listed as c6f1aa1e9f32 with the
description "Add 'relativenumber' patch from Markus
Heidelberg") and anyway they aren't taken over in the
resulting executable.
they were for me
the difference i think is in the way you updated
my update script does
hg pull -u
hg update
mercurial then told me a merge might be a good idea, so i did one
the merge reminded me to commit, so i then did that
relative numbers are now, for me, a mainstream reality
dunno why you like that 'fetch' better, but for me the
pull/update work famously
sc
When I do a pull -u, it tells me no update could be done because a merge
is necessary.
When I do a merge it tells me to do a commit.
Then I have to do a commit and not forget the commit message, else Vim
comes up as Mercurial's custom editor, asking for one.
Total 3 operations, or 4 if I forget the -m 'something sensible'
hg fetch (with the fetch extension enabled) does the pull-merge-commit
(or pull-update if no merge is needed, or nothing at all, except tell
me, if no pull is needed) in one step, and adds a reasonable commit
message. Much less hassle.
FWIW it merged eval.c (which I have patched with Bill McCarthy's "Extra
float functions") but not version.c, and the latter still includes
static int included_patches[] =
{ /* Add new patch number below this line */
/**/
0
};
at lines 682-686, i.e. "patchlevel zero". OTOH the 'relativenumber'
option is supported: when I ask
:set relat<Tab>
Vim completes with
:set relativenumber|
where | is the cursor; so I add a question mark and hit Enter:
:set relativenumber?
norelativenumber
meaning it is supported but currently not set. My post was not about
Vim's 'relativenumber' option not being supported but about no "Included
patches" in the :version output. Do you have that "Included patches"
line? I don't, so the next time I report a 7.3a bug it won't be easy for
me to say precisely which patches were or weren't included compared to
the _first_ 7.3a set of sources issued by Bram. And, as I said, saying
that I am "at relative changeset #2193" won't mean a thing, because
every commit that I do (e.g. after a merge, including those done
implicitly by fetch) adds an ordinal number not present in Bram's repo.
Every merge that you commit also adds one, but I bet we don't do them
exactly as frequently, so one of us will have more changesets than the
other in his local repo, even if we have the exact same set of official
patches included.
When I said Mercurial hashes aren't taken over in the executable, I
meant there is nothing in my running Vim which will tell me «This Vim
version includes changeset c6f1aa1e9f32 about "Add 'relativenumber'
patch from Markus Heidelberg"». The _hash_ c6f1aa1e9f32 is what is not
taken up. The changeset (i.e., the corresponding set of changes to the C
sources) is. And the half-sentence which you cut at the top of this post
said that I don't know whether what is called "changeset c6f1aa1e9f32"
in my repository is or isn't known to Mercurial by the same string of
hex digits in Bram's repo, or in yours.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
"The way to make a small fortune in the commodities market is to start
with a large fortune."
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
