Re: How to cope with patches sanely
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 09:31:10PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:34:55 +1100, Ben Finney <email@example.com> said:
> > Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >> David Nusinow <email@example.com> said:
> >> > No matter what you want to say about your feature branches, you
> >> > *must* apply them in a linear fashion to your final source tree
> >> > that you ship in the package. This is no way around it.
> >> But there is no such linearization, not in the way that quilt et al
> >> do it. The state of such integration is not maintained in the feature
> >> branches; it is in the history of the integration branch.
> > Is this (the integration branch and its history of changes) not the
> > linear sequence of changes that David Nusinow is asking for?
> No, it is not. I Apply a update to feature A. The comes an
> upstream update. Then updates on feature B, a patch that needed
> conflict resoution, then patches on branches C, D, and A again. Another
> upstream change.
> At this point, none of the original patches to A, B, and C apply
> any more -- and then come another upstream update, and all the patches
> get even more bent out of shape.
At this point, before you're ready to release, you regenerate the patches.
Then they apply just fine. Nothing gets bent out of shape and you don't
include old code in your patch that's now incorporated upstream, you just
make an appropriate diff that applies cleanly to your source package. I
don't see what the problem is here and why you believe this can't be done.
- David Nusinow