On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 12:28 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > > 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. This is likely grub you speak of, where essentially we've forked grub1 without really forking it. Absolutely no upstream work goes into grub1, and grub2 remains unusable by us, so Peter and co continue to develop on grub1 for our needs. We've made the git tree he uses public, and export from that git tree into a patch we apply during the package build. We really could just switch to doing git snapshots /as/ the source for our grub build, but what would that gain us? -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
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
