[vdr] suggestion: version stamping of patches
UseNet-Posting-Nospam-74308- at zocki.toppoint.de
Fri Jun 3 19:05:00 CEST 2005
udo_richter at gmx.de(Udo Richter) 03.06.05 02:52
>Rainer Zocholl wrote:
>>>Then we'll be in patching hell, because patches will require proper
>>>ordering and depend on each other.
>> Don't we have that already?
>> Does current patches do not change the ID or add a new?
>I currently use 5 patches regularly, with no collisions and no patch
>ordering dependencies. 3 of the 5 patch menu.c without collisions.
That may not fit for every one.
>None of them adds any kind of ID string.
Not so nice, IMHO.
But avoids collisions...
>> Do you always know exactly which patches were manually applied,
>> say 3 weeks later...i wouldn't.
>Actually... My VDR + plugin sources are built from the tars by a
>prepare script so I can always reproduce the current code base, and I
>can easily upgrade to newer versions without loosing anything.
Somewhere to download the script?
>I can reconstruct every major version I've used since end of January.
Actually i thought more in the direction someone else "outside"
should be able to reproduce the version (at least be able to see:
"Was patched with xxxx but the user forgot to mention!")
and that it should "be documented", not that actually yourself
might have the problem...
Too i don't think that everybody first makes a script before
trying a new patch. But i do think that someone is likely to
forget the patch he did manually.
More information about the vdr