DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=ZrqQZSS2IdiZIUQHEKOsuoQApz9pr05f/sEjWxw1rqT13jy1IcFboJ1BujDKF7msIF/4d5BGG+QuoCqfl1QpuKHZ0zOlB37A4qI05Lzgf7HkDM1zV7/cDGKB9+Sd1i/QykHqRUWGgbGn6TC6Q2c8bFvoFTfDeMf+5NPSjzqQWgw=
Message-ID: <46a038f904111500125ffdd300@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:12:50 +1300
From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
To: Arch Users <gnu-arch-users@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Out-of-order patch merging and tla update
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1594
Lines: 41
Using Arch for a web-based app (Moodle) I've found a bit of a weird
situation I expected tla to deal with more gracefully.

We deploy to production doing `tla update`, but sometimes, we deploy
individual patches out-of-order using get-patch and do-changeset. This
happens because patches are quite self-contained, and some may be
getting extra testing or may require off-peak-hour deployment.

Whenever the working copy has patches deployed out-of-order, `tla
changes` was returning a lot of funny stuff. Obviously, the revision
library had been built with the latest complete version, and was
showing "reverse patches" for all the few patches we had skipped. I
didn't worry.

When I did `tla update`, however, things were a bit funny, and the
regular ritual of 'undo-merge-redo' went seriously wrong. Valiantly, I
resisted hitting ctrl-c to stop the mess I had set in motion. After it
was done, I did doing 'tla undo' afterwards, to ensure I had a clean
patchlevel. It means, however, that any local changes we had are
buried in the latest undo directory, together with a lot of noise.

Of course, the right thing to do would have been to deploy the patches
we had skipped until I had a clean patchlevel, and only do tla update
there.

Are there ways to achieve the same goals without tla getting so
confused? A "production" branch were we merge things to?

cheers,


martin


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/