Re: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file
Ralph Goers wrote: This looks fine to me. If you'd like me to do it I'd be happy to, but I won't be able to do it until sometime next week. Go for it. Some time next week sounds good - it wouldn't get committed this week anyway, because of the code freeze. Upayavira Ralph -Original Message- From: Upayavira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 7:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file Ralph Goers wrote: I was thinking I would just look at the child nodes of the root. If they are all then they are all patches. That all feels a little magic to me. How about Thus, it is the root node that states that what comes are a number of patches, and the contents are a number of patch nodes much like existing files. Seems the best to me, and probably the easiest to implement. Upayavira Ralph -Original Message- From: Claas Thiele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 11:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file Ralph Goers wrote: I had thought about doing this in my last update to XConfToolTask, but I didn't want to add two features in one patch. Doing this could actually be pretty easy. Currently, it looks at the root node and grabs info from it. It would be pretty easy to see if the child nodes are some sort of "patch" node, At the moment all nested content will be copied to the document to be patched. So we need a switch, an attribute on root for instance, or a namespace? or: if the root node has no attributes, the child nodes are interpreted as "patch" nodes. Claas
RE: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file
This looks fine to me. If you'd like me to do it I'd be happy to, but I won't be able to do it until sometime next week. Ralph -Original Message- From: Upayavira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 7:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file Ralph Goers wrote: >I was thinking I would just look at the child nodes of the root. If they are >all then they are all patches. > > That all feels a little magic to me. How about Thus, it is the root node that states that what comes are a number of patches, and the contents are a number of patch nodes much like existing files. Seems the best to me, and probably the easiest to implement. Upayavira >Ralph > >-Original Message- >From: Claas Thiele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 11:45 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file > >Ralph Goers wrote: > > >>I had thought about doing this in my last update to XConfToolTask, but I >>didn't want to add two features in one patch. >> >>Doing this could actually be pretty easy. Currently, it looks at the root >>node and grabs info from it. It would be pretty easy to see if the child >>nodes are some sort of "patch" node, >> >> >At the moment all nested content will be copied to the document to be >patched. >So we need a switch, an attribute on root for instance, or a namespace? >or: >if the root node has no attributes, the child nodes are interpreted as >"patch" nodes. > > >Claas > > >
RE: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file
Xpatch can't know what files to patch with that syntax unless the file name is included. I'm not sure I really like that. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 7:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file What about: This would allow me to keep all references to e.g. my project related stuff in one file. Bye, Helma
RE: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file
What about: This would allow me to keep all references to e.g. my project related stuff in one file. Bye, Helma
Re: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file
Ralph Goers wrote: I was thinking I would just look at the child nodes of the root. If they are all then they are all patches. That all feels a little magic to me. How about Thus, it is the root node that states that what comes are a number of patches, and the contents are a number of patch nodes much like existing files. Seems the best to me, and probably the easiest to implement. Upayavira Ralph -Original Message- From: Claas Thiele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 11:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file Ralph Goers wrote: I had thought about doing this in my last update to XConfToolTask, but I didn't want to add two features in one patch. Doing this could actually be pretty easy. Currently, it looks at the root node and grabs info from it. It would be pretty easy to see if the child nodes are some sort of "patch" node, At the moment all nested content will be copied to the document to be patched. So we need a switch, an attribute on root for instance, or a namespace? or: if the root node has no attributes, the child nodes are interpreted as "patch" nodes. Claas
RE: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file
I was thinking I would just look at the child nodes of the root. If they are all then they are all patches. Ralph -Original Message- From: Claas Thiele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 11:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file Ralph Goers wrote: > I had thought about doing this in my last update to XConfToolTask, but I > didn't want to add two features in one patch. > > Doing this could actually be pretty easy. Currently, it looks at the root > node and grabs info from it. It would be pretty easy to see if the child > nodes are some sort of "patch" node, At the moment all nested content will be copied to the document to be patched. So we need a switch, an attribute on root for instance, or a namespace? or: if the root node has no attributes, the child nodes are interpreted as "patch" nodes. Claas
Re: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file
Ralph Goers wrote: I had thought about doing this in my last update to XConfToolTask, but I didn't want to add two features in one patch. Doing this could actually be pretty easy. Currently, it looks at the root node and grabs info from it. It would be pretty easy to see if the child nodes are some sort of "patch" node, At the moment all nested content will be copied to the document to be patched. So we need a switch, an attribute on root for instance, or a namespace? or: if the root node has no attributes, the child nodes are interpreted as "patch" nodes. Claas
Re: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file
+1 from me - I didn't know why it was that way either and just left things as I found them whenever I've touched it. This task goes back pretty far though IIRC - maybe there was a forgotten reason? Geoff Ralph Goers wrote: I had thought about doing this in my last update to XConfToolTask, but I didn't want to add two features in one patch. Doing this could actually be pretty easy. Currently, it looks at the root node and grabs info from it. It would be pretty easy to see if the child nodes are some sort of "patch" node, and if so iterate through them getting the info that would normally be on the root node from each patch node instead. It would be nice to do this as you could put related patches in one file. Ralph -Original Message- From: Claas Thiele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 9:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file Whats the reason for having one patch action per patchfile only? Using filesets the execution order of the patches is not predictable and so it is a hell writing more complex patches. Would it be a good idea having a set of actions in one patchfile like xupdate has? Claas
RE: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file
I had thought about doing this in my last update to XConfToolTask, but I didn't want to add two features in one patch. Doing this could actually be pretty easy. Currently, it looks at the root node and grabs info from it. It would be pretty easy to see if the child nodes are some sort of "patch" node, and if so iterate through them getting the info that would normally be on the root node from each patch node instead. It would be nice to do this as you could put related patches in one file. Ralph -Original Message- From: Claas Thiele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 9:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file Whats the reason for having one patch action per patchfile only? Using filesets the execution order of the patches is not predictable and so it is a hell writing more complex patches. Would it be a good idea having a set of actions in one patchfile like xupdate has? Claas
XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file
Whats the reason for having one patch action per patchfile only? Using filesets the execution order of the patches is not predictable and so it is a hell writing more complex patches. Would it be a good idea having a set of actions in one patchfile like xupdate has? Claas
