From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Engster Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: patch vs. overwrite in bzr Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:11:51 +0200 Message-ID: <87398jz27s.fsf@engster.org> References: <87k42cwys8.fsf@gnu.org> <87limhuldm.fsf@gnu.org> <871uo7g4j6.fsf@gnu.org> <87iphjhbm8.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87398lgrat.fsf_-_@niu.edu> <871uo5c7r0.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87pqbpj5j3.fsf@altern.org> <87aa2szgig.fsf@gnu.org> <87ehs4yrhz.fsf@gnu.org> <83k41vctyg.fsf@gnu.org> <83aa2rcnww.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1333592660 26611 80.91.229.3 (5 Apr 2012 02:24:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 02:24:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bzg@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 05 04:24:18 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SFcMz-0004NU-Qe for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 04:24:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36605 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SFcCu-0006W8-2m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:13:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52810) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SFWZD-0003Yr-BR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:12:37 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SFWYx-0000EB-5Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:12:29 -0400 Original-Received: from randomsample.de ([83.169.19.17]:50497) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SFWYw-000058-PI; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:12:15 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=randomsample.de; s=a; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From; bh=qLh+cvOSXOPizmMxIgClS8imYyAjDGfddyyK993IwaE=; b=DiuGejCXtplRylVxG1Ucst8p3AvryCJoDFNOB5CO52x7jInv0Zf82o7Kq1xOpFZ9pVq4R75HDBorsCbUDwQTofgNEeRbIA8o7LmX20s3NhiCW7vWg9ZjVFHqSUJ/4QJH; Original-Received: from dslc-082-083-058-108.pools.arcor-ip.net ([82.83.58.108] helo=spaten) by randomsample.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SFWYb-0007JQ-5I; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:11:53 +0200 In-Reply-To: <83aa2rcnww.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:11:43 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.94 (gnu/linux) Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Monnier , bzg@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 83.169.19.17 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:149389 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Stefan Monnier >> The problem is similar to cherry-picking, but reversed: you want to be >> able to get all changes except for a few negative-cherrypicks. E.g, >> "pull/merge from the Org branch all changes except for those few ones we >> don't want" (and inversely, they want to "pull from the Emacs branch, >> except for the file-renamings they did to adapt to their directory >> layout"). > > Would the problem be solved if such cherry-picking weren't needed? > That is, if the branches were exactly identical, but kept in two > different VCSes? If this would solve the problem, then that's what > I'd suggest doing. After all, all those differences sound very minor; > e.g., why not rename the files as the other guy does? At least for CEDET, I can surely tell that we won't get fully identical branches, at least not in the foreseeable future. This is mainly due to - compatibility code we keep for older Emacs versions (we will drop Emacs22 support for our new development branch, but there are still things like cedet-called-interactively-p for Emacs 23.1), - features that currently depend on defadvice or other hacks, but that are very useful for hacking on CEDET (generating properly linked help buffers for EIEIO methods and classes, for instance), - minor packages which are not needed or wanted in Emacs proper (like COGRE), - things we don't have papers for and are in our contrib directory, - EIEIO is part of CEDET but not in lisp/cedet but in lisp/emacs-lisp (a similar problem exists with Speedbar, but that is in Emacs for quite some time now and most development happens there anyway). It's not as bad as it sounds; most of the differences are minor or are at least well separated, but still - you need to cherry-pick commits. -David