matt at mattmccutchen.net
Wed Sep 1 13:37:04 UTC 2010
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 14:20 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 20:47 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 17:36 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > Perhaps local and so forth could be given a --dist=foo switch, and these
> > > sorts of errors could say "can't figure out your dist from git, use --dist
> > > or fix your repo".
> > Or a "branch" file... :D
> Please don't, a file in the repo which needs to be different between
> branches would break merging between branches (which is one thing that
> makes dist-git so much better than dist-cvs).
No... the three-way merge in any decent version control system will
propagate changes from one branch to another without messing up
pre-existing differences between the branches. That's why it's called
"merge" and not "copy".
If you want the branches to be identical, you could leave the "branch"
file untracked or just use a different method of specifying the
distribution version. I propose that fedpkg should consider a --dist
option, a "branch" file, and the name of the current git branch in that
I personally don't like fedpkg doing magic based on the name of the VCS
branch I am on and would use a "branch" file. I don't see what the big
deal is about having the branches identical; I think seeing the
difference in the "dist" value could actually be a helpful reminder.
(Yes, I should have stated this earlier, in the "Question regarding
dist-git aesthetics with branches" thread.)
More information about the devel