Re: [Tinycc-devel] Sample patch from Mercurial repository
Dave Dodge wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 02:59:15AM +0800, KHMan wrote: >> Attached is a sample patch based on the Mercurial repository. I >> assume revisions up to 395 is already in the official CVS, > > Just a quick note about mercurial: revision numbers such as 395 are > just a convenience and are locally assigned to each copy of the > repository. They aren't guaranteed to be the same for each user; in > fact local commits will quickly knock them out of sync. Changeset IDs > such as f357b2f8add5 _are_ kept globally consistent, so if you want to > specify a particular change you can use those. Thanks, I understand, I know some git and I am reading hgbook now. It was just more convenient with those numbers assuming Seo's Mercurial bundle is a frozen unit. I guess hg/git people can correctly say that my brain has been lobotomized by the notion of SVN revision numbers... :-) I will be contacting David Wheeler to see if he is interested in accepting them patches. -- Cheers, Kein-Hong Man (esq.) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Newer tinycc repository?
Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote: > KHMan wrote: >> Looks like some pretty extensive changes, including directory >> structure changes and refactoring. The question now is: Should all >> of Rob's tree go into the official CVS? > > [snip] Declare one repo as "common denominator". Nobody's offering any yet, just Nick's SVN on 20070908 which nobody really replied to. Any revision control is fine, if someone would just take the lead, but obviously some people would perceive little gain going from CVS to Nick's SVN. So regardless of the revision control issue, well, someone still needs to come up and declare himself as the "common denominator". > [snip] tcc's official repo is undermaintained since time anyways. I don't > see any benefit in trying to funnel all patches into CVS, which is a > time consuming process, if you can instead just leverage the distributed > nature of mercurial. If the official tcc is correctly sync'ed, updating CVS based on exports from hg should be quite easy, I suppose. All we need is a little planning. I don't plan to bother everyone with this thorny CVS issue anymore than necessary. This is just a bunch of largely unskilled clerical donkey work that I can try to do. I'll try to contact David Wheeler and see if he will accept the updates, then I'll report back to the list. If I get stuck, then too bad, at least I've tried. In the meantime, I'm not standing in the way of anything -- my foolish attempt to update the CVS has no bearing on the actions of our heroes wielding Mercurial -- so for the third time, I'd say that we now need someone to take some kind of lead... -- Cheers, Kein-Hong Man (esq.) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Sample patch from Mercurial repository
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 02:59:15AM +0800, KHMan wrote: > Attached is a sample patch based on the Mercurial repository. I > assume revisions up to 395 is already in the official CVS, Just a quick note about mercurial: revision numbers such as 395 are just a convenience and are locally assigned to each copy of the repository. They aren't guaranteed to be the same for each user; in fact local commits will quickly knock them out of sync. Changeset IDs such as f357b2f8add5 _are_ kept globally consistent, so if you want to specify a particular change you can use those. -Dave Dodge ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Newer tinycc repository?
KHMan wrote: > Looks like some pretty extensive changes, including directory > structure changes and refactoring. The question now is: Should all > of Rob's tree go into the official CVS? It seems to me that there is nobody except you who would like to use the CVS tcc repository. CVS is just too unflexible for a loosely coupled developer community, because it enforces central administration and access. Just let everybody do his own mecurial repo and let people sync up against each other. Declare one repo as "common denominator". I'd even go so far and have one repo "free for all" (git's "mob"). What can you lose? The only thing is that there is no "official" repo anymore, but tcc's official repo is undermaintained since time anyways. I don't see any benefit in trying to funnel all patches into CVS, which is a time consuming process, if you can instead just leverage the distributed nature of mercurial. cheers simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
