John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 08:54:36AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| > As a sidenote: I thing that too many large patches have gone in lately
| > without posting to the list and getting comments. Even if the
| > repository is open we should try to aim for a peer reviewed
| > methodology.
|
| This means I get to do one patch a day ... CVS is just useless at this.
| I'm just supposed to find something else to do when I've got insomnia /
| stupid sleeping patterns and want to do some hacking ?
IMHO cvs has little to do with this.
| You either get this, or you get one big patch at the end of it that
| *nobody* will read. Unless you know of some really smart way to get CVS
| to auto-switch between local and remote repositories:
Then you need to make a script that traverses all the CVS dirs in your
checked-out sources. There it must change the Root file to point to
your local/remote repository. I belive gcc has that kind of tool as
part of their cvs tree. (contrib/newcvsroot)
| then with a little
| work I can do things in small stages and submit them one by one without
| a 24-hour cycle between each one.
|
| So what am I to do ?
Do as I do: work on several trees at once.
For your first patch the one with the functions renameing and header
work, I would probably have been working in 3-4 different trees.
It is not as if the changes where inter-dependant.
Ok, you get some conflicts to resolve, but since all om them are your
own they are trivial to fix.
--
Lgb
