Commiting gdb-mi.el changes to Emacs upstream

Commiting gdb-mi.el changes to Emacs upstream

[Dmitry Dzhus]

I'm now ready to push some of the changes I made to gdb-mi.el to Emacs
trunk. I personally use hg and now I'm thinking what's the best way to
put all the changes in Emacs CVS.

I did more than 60 commits to my repo since it was last «synced» (that
was done by Nick for me) with Emacs CVS.

On one hand, I don't want to upload all changes in one huge CVS commit
because it will be painful to track changes introduced:

 gdb-mi.el     | 1426 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------

On the other hand, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to spam Emacs CVS
with 60 commits.

Should I split the big patch into several (not dozens) more or less
self-contained patches?

Please tell me what's the preferred way to do it. If 60 commits are ok
i'll write a script which will push my mercurial commits to emacs cvs
commits (as long as it's possible). This way granularity I have in my
local repo will be preserved in Emacs upstream as well.
-- 
Happy Hacking.

http://sphinx.net.ru
む

Re: Commiting gdb-mi.el changes to Emacs upstream

[Andreas Schwab]

Dmitry Dzhus <dima@sphinx.net.ru> writes:

> I'm now ready to push some of the changes I made to gdb-mi.el to Emacs
> trunk. I personally use hg and now I'm thinking what's the best way to
> put all the changes in Emacs CVS.

If there is an easy way to convert the history to git I could import it
into my git tree as a branch.  That would allow it to be preserved when
that tree is used as the base for the bzr import, even if it is
represented as a single commit in the CVS repo.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Commiting gdb-mi.el changes to Emacs upstream

[Stefan Monnier]

> If there is an easy way to convert the history to git I could import it
> into my git tree as a branch.  That would allow it to be preserved when
> that tree is used as the base for the bzr import, even if it is
> represented as a single commit in the CVS repo.

Indeed, it sounds like a good idea,


        Stefan

Re: Commiting gdb-mi.el changes to Emacs upstream

[Dmitry Dzhus]

Andreas Schwab wrote:

> That would allow it to be preserved when that tree is used as the base
> for the bzr import, even if it is represented as a single commit in
> the CVS repo.

When is bzr migration planned to happen? It would be much better for my
project if it became available in main emacs repo, should it be bzr or
cvs. If it's not due to happen soon, I'd rather spend time converting my
hg commits to CVS commits (I'll need to write ChangeLog entries
anyways).
-- 
Happy Hacking.

http://sphinx.net.ru
む

Re: Commiting gdb-mi.el changes to Emacs upstream

[Chong Yidong]

Dmitry Dzhus <dima@sphinx.net.ru> writes:

> Should I split the big patch into several (not dozens) more or less
> self-contained patches?

Either this, or one big commit.