Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Gregory Stark wrote: > > > > > You're still merging patches and reviewing patches by hand, without > > > > > any of the > > > > > tools to, for example, view incremental changes in the branch, view > > > > > the logs > > > > > of the branch, merge the branch into the code automatically taking > > > > > into > > > > > account the known common ancestor. Instead of receiving a 20k patch > > > > > without > > > > > any tools to work with it you would be given a branch name and be > > > > > able to view > > > > > and merge it into the main branch using the tools. > > > > > > > > I don't see this as a win. I understand the ability to see the patch as > > > > separate revisions by the user, but for patch application, we really > > > > need to see the diff -c of the entire patch. > > > > > > The fact that you're still thinking in "patch application" means you're > > > still stuck in the CVS worldview. To "apply a patch" in a distributed > > > SCM(*) really means to merge a branch into the main development branch. > > > Of course, you can still see the entire "diff -c" if you want. > > > > How do I modify the patch before application if it comes from a branch? > > You commit your change to the branch.
My typical cycle is to take the patch, apply it to my tree, then cvs diff and look at the diff, adjust the source, and rerun until I like the diff and apply. How do I do that with this setup? -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
