Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/net/ocamlnet

[David Holland <dholland-pkgchanges%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:17:09AM +0200, John Marino wrote:
 > > >  If pkgsrc was using a different version control than CVS (something
 > > >  like git and the ilk), then reviewing per-patch history on the fly
 > > >  would be a cinch.  Rather than use a better VC (and I've heard many of
 > > >  you complain about CVS), we change the process to work around its
 > > >  limitations.

For the record, I don't understand this claim. You can do "cvs log
patches/patch-aa" or "cvs annotate patches/patch-aa" just as easily
with CVS as you can with git or any other such tool.

 >>  [...]
 >> 
 >> ...also if we were going to upgrade tools and improve procedures,
 >> moving to per-topic instead of per-file patches would buy a lot more
 >> bang for the buck.
 > 
 > I think that would be a big mistake.  I could point out hundreds of
 > patched files that were patched for many reasons at different
 > points in time, with the current version of the patch being the
 > aggregate.

Yes, and that's why per-topic patches are better.

 > Per topic would have to be based on the preceding
 > intermediate version of the patch, not original file.  There's
 > order issues, 

Patches are already applied in order.

 > perhaps comprehensive issue (especially if a later
 > patch erases an earlier patch), 

That's a maintenance issue, and not a major one.

 > and of course it would be a nightmare to migrate to a new version
 > of the software. All the per-topic patches would need migrating
 > too.

Less of a nightmare than it currently is for packages with a lot of
patches.

Ever used quilt or mq?

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost