Re: Centralized darcs
On Saturday 05 August 2006 18:52, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:38:39AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > In my opinon the root of the key differences is that with patch systems
> > you can have it both ways:
> > a) all chunks in one big diff
> > b) chunks clearly separated by issue
> > Obviously the patch system is an addition to the VCS, so one can live
> > without the underlaying VCS used in a given case.
> Huh? Storing patches on SCM is one of the issues that annoys *me*
> about having a patch system in addition to VCS. This blows also
> in the archeology sense. Comparing versions in VCS is harder
> when you are actually looking at diffs of diffs.
I see your point wrt 'diffs of diffs' issue, but you bear in mind that you
should deal with people who do not use your SCM for any reason, most notably
> > Seems like you will find clearly separated chunks useful sometimes.
> Yes, however the fact that we have almost a dozen of different
> patch systems (not including the package-specific NIH systems)
> pretty much negates any potential advantage.
True. Having different patch systems is a different issue to discuss. Should
it be used only one patch system, which one, and why, are all open questions,
and I'm afraid I handly can give an ultimate answer to this one, since there
are different people with different views and preferences.
> Having it either way, centralized SCM like Ubuntu or standardized
> patch system like RPM would so much rule over the complete lack
> of coherancy we have now..
Another example : FreeBSD's Ports collection (where FreeBSD is not
upstream) is also kept under VCS, and diffs to upstream code are kept in
separate files (patches) in the very same VCS. Well, yes they use just one
method to produce these patches. This is also true for other BSD's.
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB