Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:18:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> To: jasone@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: contrib/jemalloc Message-ID: <1334945896.68082.YahooMailClassic@web113507.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <4F919E11.6040807@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Hi; --- Ven 20/4/12, Doug Barton ha scritto: ... > > > > The workflow I'm using is documented in the patch > (contrib/jemalloc/FREEBSD-upgrade). Can you tell me > how to achieve a similarly streamlined import flow with a > vendor branch in the mix? Also, what history would a > vendor branch preserve that this workflow does not? > The only upside to vendor branch merges I can think of is > that if any jemalloc sources were manually modified between > imports, merging would fail rather than silently overwriting > the changes. However, this presumes that changes > aren't making it upstream. > > I attempted to engage you about this on the svn list and > apparently you ignored my message. David is right, what > you're doing is not even close to our normal work flow. > It would actually be easier for you (and those > who may be maintaining this after you're gone) for you to do > things the way that we normally do them. > FWIW, While the vendor branch is usually the cleanest way to merge updates, it is not always the best. I personally gave up on updating two packages from the vendor tree because it's just too much trouble. In this case it's likely that the committed jemalloc is very FreeBSD specific and doesn't really match the more generic version. INHO, being that the committer is also the author it is likely his prerogative how to update it. cheers, Pedro.help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1334945896.68082.YahooMailClassic>