Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >>And they are in the wrong order, so "cvsimport" ends up committing the >>last one, which is the _empty_ one. >> >>Notice? We'll end up committing "COPYING 1.1" (the empty initial create) >>even though we _should_ have committed "COPYING 1.2" (the actual thing >>that BK committed). > > > David, how about a patch like this to cvsps? My very very limited testing > seems to say that it does the right thing.. > > It's very simple: if we are adding the same file twice to the same > PatchSet, we just look at the ordering of the revisions. If the revision > we're adding is older than the revision we already have, we just drop that > revision entirely. If it's the same, something is really wrong, and we add > it to the "collisions" list. And if it's newer, then we remove the old > revision for that file, and add the new one instead. > > As far as I can tell, the old code really was broken, since it would > happen to list different revisions in a random order when you had multiple > changes to the same file in the same patchset. This one always selects the > last one, which would seem to be the sane behaviour. > > And this all seem to make "git cvsimport -p --bkcvs" do the right thing. > I've been 'off the web' for a few weeks on vacation. I'll look at the context of the thread. It 'smells' wierd to have to revisions in the same patchset at all, but I suppose you've all been through that before. So let me catch up with this thread and get back to you... David - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Wed Jul 27 07:52:00 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-07-27 07:52:02 EST