develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from September 2012

[perl #114926] [PATCHes] [perl5db] Add more tests + Some bug-fixes

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Shlomi Fish via RT
Date:
September 18, 2012 00:29
Subject:
[perl #114926] [PATCHes] [perl5db] Add more tests + Some bug-fixes
Message ID:
rt-3.6.HEAD-11172-1347953365-759.114926-15-0@perl.org
Hi all,

On Mon Sep 17 21:48:30 2012, tonyc wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:34:52AM -0700, Shlomi Fish via RT wrote:
> > Hi Jim,
> > 
> > On Sun Sep 16 19:24:26 2012, jkeenan wrote:
> > > On Sun Sep 16 07:32:12 2012, shlomif@shlomifish.org wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > please pull the changesets from:
> > > > 
> > > > https://github.com/shlomif/perl/tree/shlomif-perl-d-add-tests-take-5
> > > 
> > > 'perldoc perlhack' recommends creating a patch with 'git format patch'
> > > and attaching it to your email to perlbug.
> > > 
> > > Is there some reason why you are using a different procedure?
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes, because that's what RJBS instructed me to do (at least implicitly).
> > Furthermore, the main reference to git format-patch in perlhack is this:
> > 
> > % git format-patch -1 --attach
> > % perlbug -s "[PATCH] $(git log -1 --oneline HEAD)" -f 0001-*.patch
> > 
> > This won't work properly because I have commited more than one changeset
> > to my branch and I wish them all to be applied to blead. perlhack later
> > mentions the fact that if this is the case, then I should
> > use "git diff blead", but RJBS said that solution was sub-optimal due to
> > attribution and other reasons.
> 
> You can use:
> 
>   git format-patch blead
> 
> possibly with --attach to produce patches for all of the changes since
> blead.
> 

Well, in that case, it should be mentioned in 'perldoc perlhack'.

> Assuming you're working in a branch.

I am working in a branch, but I had a bad experience with this
particular invocation of "git format-patch", which generated many
erroneous patches which were not part of the delta between the branches.
But that may have been caused by the fact that the branch was not rebased.

However, I don't understand why people insist on also receiving the
patches via E-mail. Doesn't it defeat the point of a distributed version
control system (DVCS) where you can pull from any remote branch?
It's a waste of bandwidth if you ask me.

Regards,

-- Shlomi Fish  


---
via perlbug:  queue: perl5 status: open
https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=114926

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About