On 07/17/13 00:59, Marc Weber wrote:
You can share "topic branches" or "PatchBranchExtension". mq patches are
"your personal stack of patches" only AFAIK.
You can share them in diff format, just like the patches that I see on
vim_dev.
mq allows to reorder patches, pop/push them.
PatchBranchExtension is about managing patches which may depend on each
other and sharing them, right?
I don't know PatchBranchExtension. In mq, when patches depend on each
other, you keep them in one "queue" which is pushed and popped like a
stack. When they don't, you can put them in separate queues (with the hg
qqueue command) and push/pop them independently of each other. So far,
the Mozilla bugs I've fixed didn't require much coding (maybe a handful
of lines in up to three files) so I never felt the need to divide the
fixes for a single bug into several interdependent patches: typically my
"queues" are of one patch each; you're making me remember that I can
delete any of them which has made it into the official source. But I've
seen bigger fixes written by others, with (rarely) up to 8
interdependent patches that had to be pushed in a certain order.
I've added this to the wiki.
URL?
[..]
use different commands, or sequences of them, to achieve a given result.
Yes - but there is :h to document and talk about all of them :) So its
not bad doing the same for Vim development workflows.
Yes indeed: Vim is the only piece of software with a help worth its name
that I've met since (when? in the eighties, maybe) I stopped working on
mainframes where the documentation (for software that came with the
machine) was a set of paper books (in quarto or US letter format, I
think, and meant to be kept in three-ring binders) and where the source
(in assembly language on half-inch 2400 ft tapes, and sometimes on
assembly listings on zigzag paper 132 characters wide by 11 or 12
inches, similar to "ledger" from what I see under :help popt-option) was
there for anyone interested in it — most people weren't.
I remember getting an interim job once after going to an "examination"
where we had to write a COBOL program about a given problem. I went with
the COBOL manual for my former computer, opened it in front of me on the
table, and stuck to the "standard" (non-machine-specific) language as
described in it. Some other examinees rebuked me for “cheating”, but I
got the job. (“Cheating?” I said, “Aren't you /supposed/ to have the
compiler manual at hand when writing a program?”).
Marc Weber
Best regards,
Tony.
--
The UNIX philosophy basically involves giving you enough rope to
hang yourself. And then a couple of feet more, just to be sure.
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
