Re: [dev] which versions are dwm patches intended to apply to cleanly?

From: Ben Woolley <tautolog_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 09:13:05 -0700

> On Jul 1, 2016, at 8:39 PM, FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:49:34 -0700
> Ben Woolley <tautolog_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Ben,
>
>> Late reply to this, but I favor the git branch approach as you suggest.
>> It is already a dependency, so why not use it for its intended purpose?
>>
>> The great thing about a branch is that it is easy to use the version the
>> patch is for, and update as desired. The tools to manage the use cases
>> around a patch are already built into git.
>>
>> Remember, git was originally created to solve the problem of concurrently
>> managing many large patch sets from distributed sources. Isn't that the
>> problem here?
>
> it's always the same thing here. People propose things that are very
> complex solutions for simple problems, and they end up being accepted
> due to negligience. However, only a few people actually maintain the
> patches in the long run, which is a shame.
>
> The dwm patch section just needs an overhaul analogous to the st
> patch section had. End of story.
>
> It's already difficult enough getting people to maintain their
> patches now, let alone in some git environment.

In my case, using git would be easier because the first thing I would do is create a branch at a known working point, apply the patch and roll selectively forward.

For releases, you could expose patches for only the branches ahead of the release, and that might encourage authors to maintain their branches, and patches could automatically be organized by release. A daily run could update the website automatically.

That way, releases posted as a tarball will have patches, while revisions requiring git would have branches in git. No new dependencies, and a simple way to organize all patches without needing to mess with dates or revisions. There would only need to be release version and patch name. Each release could have its own folder with release-specific patches.

This would also make it easy for people to incorporate changes from master as part of a patch, and produce their own releases.

Or maybe I am just recreating gitlab? I just use gitlab...

> Cheers
>
> FRIGN
>
> --
> FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
>
Received on Sat Jul 02 2016 - 18:13:05 CEST