Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add keyword unexpansion support to convert.c
- From
- Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 17, 2007, 17:03 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200704171803.58940.andyparkins@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704170847380.5473@woody.linux-foundation.org>
On Tuesday 2007, April 17, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> Try this: > > - File-A in revision 1: > > $ID: some random crap about rev1 $ > Line 2 > > - same file in revision 2: > $ID: some other random crap about rev2 $ > Line 2 got modified > > and think about it. Your diff will be something like > > @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ > $ID:$ > -Line 2 > +Line 2 got modified > > and the diff WON'T EVEN APPLY!
Why on earth would it not apply? It's being applied using git-apply, which will unexpand the keywords as it goes - as I keep saying. When the apply engine is looking for the context it's going to collapse the keyword, so the context will match and the diff WILL EVEN APPLY.
As Junio said in his reply, git-apply doesn't currently call convert_to_git(), but that's easily implemented.
> In other words, there's no way in hell you can make this work. You'll
You keep saying these sweepingly general things. It can be made to work.
> end up always having to edit the keywords parts of diffs to make them > apply if they are part of the context.
No I don't. If I had to then the keyword code would be broken. No one in their right mind would think that was an acceptable thing to do.
> (This, btw, is something that a CVS person says "so what?" about. > They're _used_ to having to do it. It's how you do merges in CVS. > Really. How many people have actually *worked* with branches in CVS
That's because CVS is rubbish. What has that got to do with it?
> on any complex project with any nontrivial work happening on the > branch? I have. I hated CVS for many reasons. Keywords was just a > small small detail in that hate relationship, but it was one of > them!)
You really can stop trying to persuade me that CVS is no good for version control - I agree, a thousand times I agree. There are a lot of things that CVS does in a broken manner, that doesn't mean that git does the same thing in a broken manner.
Andy
-- Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET andyparkins@gmail.com