[beports] Re: Changeset 60
- From: Andreas Färber <andreas.faerber@xxxxxx>
- To: beports@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 09:53:53 +0200
Am 19.05.2008 um 00:09 schrieb Ingo Weinhold:
On 2008-05-18 at 11:03:31 [+0200], Andreas Färber <andreas.faerber@xxxxxx
>
wrote:
I see you've updated my neon-0.25.x patch. Please don't overwrite my
SVN patch with a non-SVN patch, we are losing the revision
information
then. If you did create them against the 0.25.x branch, please use
svn
diff rather than diff -ur.
Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware that you diffed against an official
branch. In
fact I wasn't even aware that that neon 0.25 is still maintained.
I don't know either, but mine says 0.25.5 and your patch is supposedly
against 0.25.4, that could be an indication that there is some
maintainance for 0.25.x, just like for old apr 0.9.x. (I managed to
get a minor BeOS fix merged into that branch some weeks ago.)
The .x SVN patches are the ones for
upstream merging, the ones with definite version number are for
'release' use and BePorter.
OK. BTW, is that the generally preferred strategy?
No. The official position is that the BePorter tools needs patches
against source downloads, and they are to be named according to the
version number.
The patches against repositories are something I started so that I can
more easily diff my changes and merge them upstream and backport them
for released tarballs (cf. gettext). When I work against a branch, I
use a name corresponding to the branch name (such as 0.25.x),
otherwise I use -trunk for SVN and -CVS for CVS and -master for Git.
We agreed on the list that this was okay to do (as opposed to just
using e.g. revision numbers), but this is not yet formalized in the
guidelines.
Andreas
--
BePorts homepage - http://tools.assembla.com/BePorts
List archives: //www.freelists.org/archives/beports
Administrative contact: brecht@xxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
