[beports] Re: CVS/SVN head portlog/patches
- From: Brecht Machiels <brecht@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: beports@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:31:02 +0200
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 12:37 +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> I disagree in that respect. Naming the file cvs-CVS.diff (or cvs-
> HEAD.diff) allows it to be easily overwritten and revisioned with
> future patches inside our repository. In case of ccvs-CVS I don't
> think it'll change much anyway (last in 2005?). CVS repositories in
> general have the problem of not providing a global revision number, we
> would have to use the UTC date+time of checkout. This currently
> affects CVS, expat and Portable.NET.
I see your point. It would indeed be messy if we have patches for a
large number of CVS/SVN revisions. It's necessary to be able to
unambiguously link the patch to the corresponding repository revision
tough.
> Correctly created patches against working copies (cvs diff -u, svn
> diff, git diff) contain the revision information in textual form at
> the beginning of the file, before each actual file diff.
That's great. I did not know this. We'll have to change the wiki page
about creating patches accordingly.
> I assume that we won't attempt to use the BePorter tool to use them in
> an automated way, they are solely intended to share my work in
> progress with you or anyone interested.
No problem for me. The BePorter tool is secondary. However, I think the
recipes might be of value outside of BePorter too, as they include
information on how to build a certain port. It could be argued that this
information (at least the non-obvious pieces of it) should be in the
portlog though. I dont like to duplicate information however. Opinions?
> In the Wiki we might document one of the revisions used as a vague
> reference (i.e. without strict guarantees of being up-to-date) or for
> CVS add a statement "last updated:", but it wouldn't make sense to
> duplicate Wiki sections for each SVN revision as done for the released
> versions. The point should be to get ports done and not get us stopped
> by unneccessary documentation. It's been already some work to apply
> the template all over and to create. There's little point in providing
> outdated patches as part of a checkout (that's what our revisioned
> repository is for), and I also didn't see a reason to keep Wiki
> content for outdated Haiku revisions (e.g. sys/poll.h and sys/mman.h
> were added). Keeping info on old released software versions I
> understand and agree with.
I fully agree.
Regards,
Brecht
--
BePorts homepage - http://tools.assembla.com/BePorts
List archives: //www.freelists.org/archives/beports
Administrative contact: brecht@xxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
