Libraries in the repo
marlowsd at gmail.com
Fri Aug 28 06:42:00 EDT 2009
On 28/08/2009 10:05, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 27/08/2009 11:37, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
>> Simon Marlow wrote:
>>>>>> Simon Marlow wrote:
>>>>>>>> I suggest if we stick with the independent repo approach that we
>>>>>>>> have some automation to check that changes are indeed getting
>>>>>>>> pushed upstream.
>> [snip unhelpful suggestion from me]
>>> Yes, it tells you that you've screwed up, rather than telling you
>>> that you're about to screw up, which would be much more convenient.
>>> After you've screwed up it might be too late to fix it, due to
>>> conflicts with upstream.
>> Can you arrange that the only way that patches can get into the branch
>> is via darcs pull --intersection<upstream repo> ?
> That's an interesting idea, I'd forgotten about --intersection.
I have a script that works as a prehook (below). Unfortunately it
doesn't work on darcs.haskell.org, I think because we only have darcs
1.0.9 there, and it is ignoring my prehook.
Can anyone think of a good reason not to upgrade darcs to 2.3.0 on
darcs.haskell.org? I can think of 3 reasons to do so:
- this script, for preventing accidental divergence from upstream
- faster pushes, due to transfer-mode
- hide those annoying "Ignore-this: xxxxx" messages
# Only allow applying of patches that are also in this upstream repository:
# echo DARCS_PATCHES_XML = $DARCS_PATCHES_XML
# Take $DARCS_PATCHES_XML and turn it into a list of patch hashes
# suitable for looping over.
hashes=`echo $DARCS_PATCHES_XML | sed 's|</patch>|</patch>\n|g' | sed -n
'/hash/p' | sed "s|^.*hash='\([^']*\)'.*$|\1|"`
# echo hashes: $hashes
# For each patch, try pulling the patch from the upstream repo. If
# the patch is not upstream, then fail.
for p in $hashes; do
if darcs pull --match="hash $p" $UPSTREAM --xml --dry-run | grep "$p"
echo "Patch $p is upstream; ok"
echo "Patch $p is not upstream!"
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users