Yes, arch basically stores the repo as a tar.gz of sources and a tar.gz of patchfiles and some instructions; along with that goes some metadata like the email-style log file.
Does that mean you can't do an update on an individual file? Thanks for bearing with me, I haven't had a chance to read any of the docs yet. -- Owen
On 2004-09-23 15:55:17 +0100 Owen Leonard <oleonard@athenscounty.lib.oh.us> wrote:
Does that mean you can't do an update on an individual file? Thanks for bearing with me, I haven't had a chance to read any of the docs yet.
Each changeset ought to be exactly one group of interrelated changes, so a single-file update is an odd thing to want to do. I'm not sure whether the tools support it. At worst, you can crack open the patches tarball and use just one. That might be fun if you later want to apply or merge the changeset you opened. You can commit only some files rather than all changed files (--file-list option), which is a feature added after user requests. It seems some developers enjoy hacking many changes simultaneously in one working copy. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk
MJ Ray a écrit :
You can commit only some files rather than all changed files (--file-list option), which is a feature added after user requests. It seems some developers enjoy hacking many changes simultaneously in one working copy.
On my french tutorial (that is a translation of the english one), they say it can be useful when you're working on something important, then have to fix something trivial. You fix it, and you commit just the trivial change. The important modifs being commited later. That's sounds logic. Note I like a LOT the "global" commit of arch. It bother me to look in my source tree which files I modified (in C4, in GGI, in templates, in updater, quite boring & often missing things) -- Paul POULAIN Consultant indépendant en logiciels libres responsable francophone de koha (SIGB libre http://www.koha-fr.org)
Would it make sense then, since the RM has control anyway, to just send a patchfile to the RM if you're only making small changes (bug-squashing) to a single file? MJ Ray said:
On 2004-09-23 15:55:17 +0100 Owen Leonard <oleonard@athenscounty.lib.oh.us> wrote:
Does that mean you can't do an update on an individual file? Thanks for bearing with me, I haven't had a chance to read any of the docs yet.
Each changeset ought to be exactly one group of interrelated changes, so a single-file update is an odd thing to want to do. I'm not sure whether the tools support it. At worst, you can crack open the patches tarball and use just one. That might be fun if you later want to apply or merge the changeset you opened.
-- Stephen Hedges Skemotah Solutions, USA www.skemotah.com -- shedges@skemotah.com
On 2004-09-24 12:46:25 +0100 Stephen Hedges <shedges@skemotah.com> wrote:
Would it make sense then, since the RM has control anyway, to just send a patchfile to the RM if you're only making small changes (bug-squashing) to a single file?
If it's just a small change, a patchfile is about as easy for whatever developer you send it to. If you send it direct to the RM, other arch-using developers can't get your change until the RM merges it. (Whether or not that's a good thing to do is an open question: it depends on how laggy the RM is.) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk
participants (4)
-
MJ Ray -
Owen Leonard -
Paul POULAIN -
Stephen Hedges