> > > Well, I posted script called mkcvspatch to the list
> almost a year ago.
> > > It didn't cause very much excitement, so I didn't bother posting
> > > any new versions.
> >
> > I suppose few of us need that kind of hard-to-use tool
> (writing spec files
> > etc... ugh), it's not like most of us do that kind of
> large-scale work
> > that requires keeping a lot of unsubmitted/rejected stuff
> around in our
> > trees for a long time...
>
> Well, I just cvs diff the files I know are affected and send
> them off to
> Alexandre. No need for scripts.
Well yes, but as Ove said, some people like me usually have quite a lot
of rejected, untested or work in progress stuff so I have found it very
useful that why I wrote it.
It can seperate the changes in several patch and assures that all changed
and new files are belongs to a patch, which is quite useful even for
smaller patches. Of course writing a spec file for each patch might
seem like at lot of unnessary work, but I think it is worth it.
Especially since it gives me a ChangeLog to just attach with the patches
when I send them to Alexandre.
The mkcvspatch script could easily be adapted to work like cvs diff +
diff -u /dev/null <newfiles> for an easy one command generation
of a complete patch. I haven't had any not use for this myself but if
anybody is intrested I can do that.
