On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 11:40 +0200, Stanislav Brabec wrote:
Michael Wolf wrote:
I don't propose writing our own, of course. There's no need.
We even may start with osc - osc is based on svn and their authors could help us with accessing its svn functions.
As far as I can tell, osc is based on svn only insofar as its user interface for checking in packages is similar. I'm not averse to osc wrapping a proper revision control system (eg, osc diff, osc checkin, etc being based on their hg equivalents), but I am quite convinced that: a) We will sometimes want or need a way to drop down into lower-level and more powerful tools b) Something distributed is the way to go.
But to say that revision control doesn't work well for packages? I don't buy it.
It was my practical experience.
In December 2006 we branched ~280 packages to G:U to move packages to /usr.
I did a complete backup of all packages in the branch point.
G:U changed ~250 packages.
Factory changed ~30 packages.
There was ~30 packages with paralles changes.
In late January 2007 I went to merge both branches.
From those ~30 packages, ~20 was fixed by a simple merge and ~10 had to be merged manually.
The major problems of simple diff-patch-wiggle are:
Upstream updated package and fixed the same problem in parallel. Added patch is rendered obsolete.
Changes are in the same patch. Second level patch are often hard to apply (code change -> patch change -> second level patch cannot apply).
Changes in spec preamble often conflict - upgrade changes patch sets, fix does it as well. You have to merge patch set as first in order.
Right. Well, conflicts are a fact of life, whether it comes to personal opinions or changes made to text files. :) Also we have plans to improve our .specs so that, among other things, it'll be obvious that a patch is expected to appear upstream and is therefore a candidate for removal. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org