On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 08:15 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Dan Williams <dcbw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Yeah, there is actually a benefit to tarball+patches approach we take
> > right now; and that benefit is that it's extremely easy to see just what
> > we've done to the upstream package, and it's usually really easy to
> > extract those changes and push them upstream. You don't want a
> > mega-diff that includes 20 specific patches.
>
> I know of at least one example currently in our cvs where we went from
> a set of separate small patch files to one encompassing patch file. I
> think it was a diff from git. If we move to more advanced vcs are we
> going to have a harder time keeping patches separated? Or is it just a
> matter of education on how not to reach for the easy to produce mega
> patch shortcut?
Education most likely. Git can git you patches one at a time, or all in
one, depending on what you ask for (of course, if you import a bunch of
patches all at once into a single changeset then you are stuck from then
on). Our internal kernel git scripts do a patch per changeset.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
http://people.redhat.com/dledford
Infiniband specific RPMs available at
http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
