On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 02:20:23PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > I'm almost sure that someone other (for example
> > Linus) will use GIT instead quilt for same job.
>
> I tried it during F7 after FUDCon. I thought it'd work out too.
> It didn't. As soon as rebasing broke Xen, it became a nightmare,
> as I couldn't easily drop it. It became easier to just
What not? You need to 1/ checkout code to a temporary branch, 2/
remove the patch (reset --hard) and 3/ rebase (--onto tmp) to the
original branch.
Well, I agree this is definitely less elegant than comment out
some %patch.
> regenerate the tree from scratch without xen ever having been
> included. (This however kills your history).
>
> Compare this to the method we use today, where I just comment
> out some %patch's, and maybe rediff 1-2 of the follow-on patches.
The problem is that the method we use today doesn't support anything
like rediffing. The "rediff 1-2" is nightmare with rpmbuild +
gendiff.
> This approach isn't too unlike quilt.
Yes, but the quilt is better. It supports rediffing ("quilt refresh").
When I think about the way how I use CVS for Fedora packages -- I
have to say: I needn't SCM for *patches management*. I need SCM when
I work on changes to source code.
The method we use today is silly -- we use (ugly, centralized)
*source code* management tool for *patches management*. The other
disadvantage is that the method isn't integrated with spec file
management (you still need to manually edit your spec files).
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
