[vdr] suggestion: version stamping of patches

Rainer Zocholl UseNet-Posting-Nospam-74308- at zocki.toppoint.de
Fri Jun 3 00:47:00 CEST 2005

udo_richter at gmx.de(Udo Richter)  02.06.05 21:24

>Rainer Zocholl wrote:
>> The "redundant" "/* Filename audio.h: */" is
>> to give "patch" some fix points for "fuzzy" logic,
>> as this file might have many changes.

>A diff -u needs at least three common lines before and after each
>change to pass through with 'fuzz'. And because this is a generated
>file, no patch should change it. 

Or take as "base" and add new lines. 
But then it can't be generated anymore.

>In fact, it will be a common mistake to include this file in patches.


>> If a patch is applied it could add it's own "Id$: patch" to
>> the modified source file.
>> Or it changes the CVS $Id.

>Again, if two patches try to modify the same source file, they MUST
>collide, because both want to change the $Id line. 

So there would be only to "add" a new "ID"

>Then we'll be in patching hell, because patches will require proper 
>ordering and depend on each other. 
>(... patch X for plain vanilla VDR, patch X.1 for users
>of patch Y, patch X.2 for users of patch Z, patch X.3 for users of
>patch Y AND Z, ...)

Don't we have that already?

Does current patches do not change the ID or add a new?

>The only way that wont introduce unnecessary conflicts is 
>to add NEW files, 


>like installed-patches/MyPatchName.info, and then collect all
>these info files somehow.

>However, first, this requires such a method to be implemented in VDR,
>so you need Klaus to do it, 

or make a patch for it? ;-)

>and second, all patches must be adapted to support this. 

I assume the patcheers will do it on their own interresst,
because they too would like see if the patch worsk with others or not.

An other way would be simply note the source file date and size 
(or md5 ;-)) to see which files were changed compared to the tar.

>You really think this will work?

As the number of patches are still growing it will become
harder and harde to reproduce errors.
Do you always know exactly which patches were manually applied,
say 3 weeks later...i wouldn't.
Maybe VDR needs someday something like a mini-apt (iapt)? ;-)

Anyway: Does it really help debugging or to make VDR more stable
to have more transparency?

Rainer---<=====>                         Vertraulich
         <=====>--------------ocholl, Kiel, Germany ------------

More information about the vdr mailing list