Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:53:55 -0800 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: BitBucket: GPL-ed KitBeeper clone |
| |
> Yes. > > Some kind of better-patch is badly needed. > > What kind of data would have to be in soft-changeset? > * unique id of changeset > * unique id of previous changeset > (two previous if it is merge) > ? or would it be better to have here > whole path to first change? > * commit comment > * for each file: > ** diff -u of change > ** file's unique id > ** in case of rename: new name (delete is rename to special dir) > ** in case of chmod/chown: new permissions > ** per-file comment > > ? How to handle directory moves? > > Does it seem sane? Any comments?
Looks good to me.
If people keep changesets sanely, then there should be no need for per-file comments IMHO, but I'm sure that's a matter of debate.
M.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |