Re: Access to CVS

[Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Frank Terbeck wrote:
> 
> Just to clarify: You don't mean to squash everything to one blob of
> changes, if there were logically separated changeset in the commits
> before, right?
> 
> You mean to use interactive rebasing to get rid of those "Crap, forgot a
> semicolon here and there." commits before submitting to the list?

Yes, exactly. If there are logically separated changesets I'd post each in
a separate mailing list message.

> I think git-am would still work if we had something that would scan a
> saved mail for the X-Seq: header, amend Subject and then feed that into
> git-am.

That only really helps when someone who doesn't have permissions to push
to the main repository posts a patch and someone else pushes it on their
behalf. For my own patches, I'd use git commit --amend.

> 
> > (The main advantage of git notes is that
> > checksums are preserved so you can apply a change from the mailing list
> > and it is handled more cleanly when the patch appears in the main
> > repository.)
> 
> Sure, but how well are notes supported within git as a whole? Also, who
> would we make sure adding notes isn't forgotten?

I'm not really arguing for git notes: that point was meant as context
for the preceding sentence.

This discussion has actually convinced me that our best approach is to
amend commit messages for the X-Seq number. Correct me if I'm wrong but
I got the impression that was forming as the general consensus.

It also avoids having to retrospectively add notes for all past commits
in the repository. And it is easy to change to notes at a later point if
we change are minds.

> Pretty much, except for re-doing the $ZSH_PATCHLEVEL variable, which
> currently is fed the patchlevel from CVS.

Aaron's patch looks good for that.

I reckon we're all set to go.

Oliver