Re: 4.3.0.1 Possible Release and Keeping XFree86 CVS Up to Date

[Harold L Hunt II <huntharo at msu dot edu>]

Brian,

Brian Ford wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Alexander Gottwald wrote:
>
>
> > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> >
> >
> > > As for keeping the XFree86 CVS tree up to date, am I right that I
> > > should be sending patches against XFree86 CVS xf-4_3-branch, instead
> > > of the xf-4_3_0_1 snapshot?  Could I do this with:
> > >
> > > cd xc/programs/Xserver/hw
> > > cvs diff -U3 -r xf-4_3-branch xwin > xwin.diff
> -U3 is the same as just -u.  Cygwin, and most other projects (I don't know
> about XFree86 for sure), usually also prefer -p to print C function
> names in the diff header.

-p, -U3, and -u weren't really the question here, but thanks for the 
tips anyway.

> So:
>
> cvs diff -up -r xf-4_3-branch xwin > xwin.diff
>
> But, if your sources are already at the head of the branch (like they
> should be to do this), the -r xf-4_3-branch is redundant.

Head of the branch as in I checked out using:

cvs -z3 checkout -r xf-4_3-branch xc

?

> If your
> sources are on the branch, but out of date, this command would include
> newer changes that have already been committed in with yours.

I always do a 'cvs update' before diffing for stuff that I am sending to 
xfree86.org, specifically so that I don't keep sending them the same 
things over and over again.

> Since that is
> probably not what you or they want, here too it is better to leave off
> the -r xf-4_3-branch.  If your sources are not on the branch at all, this
> is mostly just nonsense.
>
> All that said, if you are the only one modifying xwin, it probably just
> doesn't matter.
>
>
> > the xf-4_3_0_1 snapshot is part of the xf-4_3 branch. So if you checkout
> > the snapshot, you have the latest from the xf-4_3 branch. A simple cvs
> > diff will create a diff against the xf-4_3 branch.
>
> I disagree.  The snapshot is a point in time on the branch.  It may not
> be, and probably isn't the latest.  A simple cvs diff will create a diff
> against the snapshot, not the branch.

You are both referring to a diff against an -r xf-4_3_0_1 checkout, not 
against a -r xf-4_3-branch checkout, right?

Note that I have about 5 copies of the xc module, one for HEAD and a 
bunch of others for different branches/tags.

> I would suggest just keeping your sources on the head of the branch.  The
> only advantage to using a snapshot tag is reproduceability.  I don't think
> snapshots have any sort of stability implied.

Is the head of the branch xf-4_3-branch?  I assume that is what you mean.

> > > The main question here is can I make diffs against the specified branch
> > > rather than the branch that I have locally?  I assume the answer is
> > > yes, but some confirmation from others before I waste time looking into
> > > it would be helpful.
> Yes you can, but the result may be difficult to interpret.  As I said
> before, you might get lucky just because you are the only one making
> changes.  This is probably why they often have to hand apply your
> patches, though.

Who has to apply my patches by hand?  This has never been brought to my 
attention.  Who is "they"?  Are you referring to the patches I send to 
xfree86.org or the patch sets that I distribute with Server Test Series 
releases?  The latter are meant to be applied by hand and only server to 
highlight what has changed to those that are keeping track.

> > I think cvs diff -r tagname will do this. But it also includes all
> > changes made in both branches.
>
> I agree.  If you are on branch x, and you cvs diff with branch y, you
> obviously get their difference.  If you apply that patch to branch y,
> branch y ends up identical to branch x.  That might revert valid changes
> on branch y, and thus is not a good idea.

So my question is, can I make patches for the xf-4_3-branch based off a 
HEAD checkout without actually having to pull the xf-4_3-branch tree? 
If so, then I can just create patches to keep the xf-4_3-branch up to 
date without actually having a copy of it on my disk.  This would be 
convenient.

> I don't know if I have made things clearer, or just added to the
> confusion.  I am pretty well versed in cvs, though.  So I can attempt more
> clarification if needed.

I think that it helped.  My main problem is that I just haven't spent 
much time with CVS, getting to know how it works etc.  What you have 
said has added to my overall knowledge of how CVS works, as well as to 
some specifics related to our project.

Thanks for your help,

Harold