From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 14:09:00 +0100 From: Uriel To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Patch notification emails Message-ID: <20050904130900.GL21486@server4.lensbuddy.com> References: <20050904121417.GJ21486@server4.lensbuddy.com> <20050904123933.GK21486@server4.lensbuddy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Topicbox-Message-UUID: 83a31568-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 08:59:29AM -0400, Russ Cox wrote: > Even the ones that result from applying a patch > often are not verbatim copies of what was in the patch. > I probably edit at least half of the incoming patch code > after applying it and before pushing it to sources. I know that, but I don't think there is much I can do about it, maybe you could edit the patch itself before applying it? This was one of the main reasons why I gave up on creating a patch tracking system that keep track of both sources changes and patches, as I found it impossible to find a sane way to merge both streams of changes while preserving things like patch(1) comments. > What makes you think that changes to sources are > being done as none? Sorry, I was looking at http://angband.tip9ug.jp/magic/histgw/n/sources/plan9/sys/src/cmd/tcs/utf.c (see the [none] and [rsc] at the end of different changes) Maybe it's a bug in histgw, I still have to ask nashi for the source and take a look, but I don't think I will have time for that at least until next week. "glenda" isn't very useful either, but well, this is just a very insignificant detail, having comments associated with the changes would be much more useful IMHO but we have already discussed this and I guess it just wont happen. uriel P.S.: It's just me, or sources is extremely slow? > > % cd /n/sources/plan9/sys/src/9/port > % ls -lm chan.c > [rsc] --rw-rw-r-- M 130453 glenda sys 31560 Sep 1 01:19 chan.c > % > > Russ