Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 09:50:05 +0100 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: current@FreeBSD.org Cc: fanf@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Tricky subversion import, what to do? Message-ID: <xeiaiq08xkqq.fsf@kobe.laptop> In-Reply-To: <20101107135329.GL85693@acme.spoerlein.net> ("Ulrich =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sp=F6rlein=22's?= message of "Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:53:29 %2B0100") References: <20101107135329.GL85693@acme.spoerlein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:53:29 +0100, Ulrich Sp=F6rlein <uqs@spoerlein.net> wr=
ote:
> Hello,
>
> this is about importing unifdef 2.4, which has no significant code
> changes, but that's not the point. The wiki is of no help for this
> particular case.
>
> We have no exclusive vendor branch for unifdef, instead it has been
> converted to svn under vendor/CSRG/dist/usr.bin/unifdef/ and some
> parts of its history (eg. r1591) are copied from there:
>
> A /head/usr.bin/unifdef/Makefile (from /vendor/CSRG/dist/usr.bin/unifd=
ef/Makefile:1590)
> A /head/usr.bin/unifdef/unifdef.1 (from /vendor/CSRG/dist/usr.bin/unif=
def/unifdef.1:1590)
> A /head/usr.bin/unifdef/unifdef.c (from /vendor/CSRG/dist/usr.bin/unif=
def/unifdef.c:1590)
>
> So, my first instinct would be to
>
> $ svn mv $FSVN/vendor/CSRG/dist/usr.bin/unifdef $FSVN/vendor/unifdef/dist
> (put all files (or just the necessary subset?) of unifdef-2.4 in vendor/u=
nifdef/dist)
> $ svn ci
> $ svn cp $FSVN/vendor/unifdef/dist $FSVN/vendor/unifdef/2.4
> $ svn cp $FSVN/vendor/unifdef/dist/unifdef.{c,1} $FSVN/head/contrib/unifd=
ef/
> $ svn rm head/usr.bin/unifdef/unifdef.{c,1}
> (but this part loses the actual history on head, as it was never
> committed to the vendor branch)
> (update usr.bin/unidef/Makefile to point to contrib/unifdef)
> $ svn ci
>
> But then again, the first steps could also be:
> $ svn cp head/usr.bin/unifdef vendor/unifdef/dist; svn ci
> $ svn cp vendor/unifdef/dist vendor/unifdef/2.3; svn ci
>
> This seems more reasonable to me, but I'm not sure what the policy is on
> "old stuff" under vendor/
I think it all depends on how "valuable" the merge history from
/vendor/CSRG/dist/usr.bin/unifdef to /vendor/unifdef/dist is. IMO it
isn't, because we won't be merging from the CSRG code anymore.
So I'd prefer the second option.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xeiaiq08xkqq.fsf>