From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Latest merge from the emacs-23 branch Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:10:08 -0500 Message-ID: References: <83zks4fkua.fsf@gnu.org> <83sjxwf18y.fsf@gnu.org> <83hbebf0dd.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1292771444 27409 80.91.229.12 (19 Dec 2010 15:10:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 15:10:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 19 16:10:40 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PUKuC-0001kE-TJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:10:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53632 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PUKu9-0007HX-SW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:10:33 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=32854 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PUKtp-0005uj-IP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:10:27 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PUKtn-0004Ur-H4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:10:12 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:40452) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PUKtn-0004Um-FG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:10:11 -0500 Original-Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PUKtk-0006ov-Bw; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:10:08 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 08:47:18 -0500) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:133818 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 08:47:18 -0500 > > In practice the list tends to be reasonably short (since it only > includes things like backports plus a few changes that are already > overridden on the trunk, like changing the release number). So we could > probably include it, tho it's more work. Currently, the output that my > script gets doesn't mention revision ids, only revision numbers and log > messages, so maybe we could just include the first line of commit > messages instead of revision ids. That'd be good, thanks. > > how can I distinguish between this case and the case of > > erroneously merging from the branch (which happened in the past)? > > By looking at the code. You mean, I need to give up using "bzr diff" (or the corresponding VC commands), which AFAIK are based on the history metadata, and instead use "bzr cat" on each one of two (or 3) revisions, then run Diff on them? That'd be a major inconvenience. > Even with more metadata, only the code can tell > you what was actually changed since the metadata can only tell you what > bzr commands were used (and even that only to a limited extent since my > script uses various ways to cheat around bzr's limitations), but not how > conflicts were resolved manually or what extra manual changes > were performed. If we cheat Bazaar too much, we will eventually cheat ourselves, because output of a "cheated" tool cannot be trusted.