svn or arch

[Dimitrie O. Paun]

On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 11:15:36AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-12-19 at 23:49 -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> 
> > That's an idea that I've been playing with myself. 
> 
> You also have a build system?

Nothing that works, no. But I'm planning on setting one up, based
on arch. Thinking about it, I've reached the same conclusions you
had, which is what got me into this thread in the first place :)

> > However, I think we can avoid all sorts of problems, if instead of branching
> > from the source, we branch from the brances -- this would give us the
> > ordering. 
> 
> Yes, that's definitely a possibility too.  I'm not sure honestly which
> would work better in practice until someone actually writes the system
> and we start using it for nontrivial packages.

Goes without saying. But before we can write one, I have to have at
least a clue how it's going to work out.

But speaking of the branches, this is what will make or break such system.
Explicitly defining them in the .spec file is one way. More work, but:
  1. you get more control
  2. it's easy to add/delete/reorder things.

However, it's still not clear how it's going to work. Without merging
patches, how do you know they don't conflict? Even if they don't, they
may introduce fuzz for the others.

It seems to me the only way you are guranteed things will work is only
if you have the RCS system handle the order in which you do the patches
as well.

-- 
Dimi.