Re: RFC round 5: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 03:23:50PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@madism.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 10:30:14PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >> Anyway, I'd rather wait some time until people have tried using this
> >> format before deciding if we must make some special case due to
> >> git format-patch.
> >
> > It's not a special case. Kernel people, git people, gnome people, X.org
> > people, all can cherry-pick patches and format-patch them away. If you
> > ask them to add one missing header like the actual source or commid-id
> > they took the patch from, they'll probably do it (I would at least). If
> > you ask to rewrite the full stuff, then really, "go to hell" will
> > probably be the (sane) answer you'll get.
>
> What format do the other DVCS systems use for patch export?
IIRC hg generates mails pretty much like git nowadays, and the `hg
import` feature works mostly like git does:
"You can import a patch straight from a mail message. Even patches as
attachments work (to use the body part, it must have type text/plain or
text/x-patch). From and Subject headers of email message are used as
default committer and commit message. All text/plain body parts before
first diff are added to commit message."
I'm not used to bzr at all, but I would be surprised it does sth _very_
different.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Reply to: