[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] towards standards specifications
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] towards standards specifications |
Date: |
Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:21:33 -0700 (PDT) |
> From: MJ Ray <address@hidden>
> > [...] I've tried to give a high-level
> > overview of the design space questions and sketch in some history
> > about previous attempts to standardize.
> Thanks a lot for this. It certainly helped me, [...]
Cool, somebody actually read it :-)
> I'm not happy with the current tla implementation of inventory, but
> that's probably because I don't understand it enough. Is it
> documented?
Not to be too much M-x doctorish but, "Why are you not happy with the
current tla implementation of inventory, but that's probably because
you don't understand it enough?"
That code _is_ a mess -- I'm slowly working on cleaning it up for the
=tagging-method generalization. But it's kind of a tricky operation
since to break it in deployed versions creates havoc.
> > It _might_ be intersting to factor out `inventory', `mkpatch',
> > and `dopatch' into a separate distribution.
> How easy is it to turn a random changeset into an arch commit? I'm
> sure it should be easy, yet I lack the required magic words.
Well, the rule is that the changeset stored by `commit' should be an
exact changeset against the immediate ancestor revision. So, while a
"raw-commit" command that trusts the user and stores an arbitrary
changeset is a small matter of hacking, it's not a great idea for
general use. The magic words would be something like:
% tla get IMMEDIATE-ANCESTOR
% tla dopatch CHANGESET IMMEDIATE-ANCESTOR-DIR
% tla commit -d IMMEDIATE-ANCESTOR-DIR
> Most of your message makes it look like a refactoring of any arch
> implementation notes along these lines would be a good idea.
Internally, that's how its structured with the biggest exception being
auto-changelog foo. My biggest reason for not proactively separating
out a distinct "changeset-utils" distribution is that arch is tiny
enough and stand-alone enough that I don't think such a separation
would remove any serious barriers.
-t
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tagline robustness, (continued)
- [Gnu-arch-users] towards standards specifications, Tom Lord, 2003/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] towards standards specifications, MJ Ray, 2003/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] towards standards specifications, Jason McCarty, 2003/08/27
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: towards standards specifications, Miles Bader, 2003/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: towards standards specifications, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: towards standards specifications, Miles Bader, 2003/08/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] towards standards specifications,
Tom Lord <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] towards standards specifications, MJ Ray, 2003/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tagline robustness, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/08/26