Re: Sharing the savannah hg archive (was: Re: Savannah server unreliable?)

[John W. Eaton]

On 11-Sep-2008, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:

| On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:26 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
| >
| > The savannah site also allows pushing via ssh if you are a member of
| > the Octave project on Savannah (that part of the hg setup on savannah
| > seems to be more reliable, and was working for me even when the public
| > http access was not).  Perhaps it is time to allow multiple users to
| > push to the public archive on savannah?  That would maybe streamline
| > the installation of patches?  However, if we do this, I think we need
| > some ground rules about who can push without approval, how ChangeLog
| > entries should be handled (or even whether we should continue to use
| > them), etc.
| >
| > Comments?
| >
| > jwe
| >
| 
| A small note regarding ChangeLogs:
| I now use a patched copy of Mercurial, that recognizes an option
| `changelogmask =' in the [diff] section. When a file that matches this
| glob mask is being diffed, and the new revision exactly matches the
| old one plus some prepended lines (by far the most common case with
| ChangeLogs), only the prepended lines are dumped (i.e. a contextless
| diff). This makes much more changesets to apply smoothly when
| transplanting or exporting/importing. If anyone is interested, I can
| share the patch.

Whatever is doing the merge in my Mercurial version now also does
something similar (I think, if I understand your description).  But it
is still not what I want.  Suppose I'm applying a patch to my archive
today, but the ChangeLog has an older date, and some additional
entries have been added above the location where the context matches.
then I get:

  newer log entries

  current patch log entry

  older log entries

and the date is wrong (should be todays date for my log.  So I still
have to go find the log entry for the current patch and move it to the
top and change the date.  Then I need something like

  hg qrefresh --currentdate

so that in my archive, the data corresponding to the changeset matches
the date that the changeset was actually applied.  I'm using
Mercurial Queues to apply patches so that I can cleanly fix up
problems like this before committing; there may be other ways to do
it, but this is what works for me.

If I were just synchronizing my archive with someone elses, I would
not do this.  But I think the situation is different when
cherrypicking patches.  The point is that if I look at your archive at
two points in time, I would not expect to find older entries suddenly
appearing in it later on.

jwe