Re: [XenPPC] mercurial modesl

[Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 16:14 -0400, Mark F Mergen wrote:

> Would you please send a similar detailed patch email to the list for the
> other two changesets that you pushed since last Friday?  The only way I
> have found to avoid "merge hell" is to see what files are being changed and
> take appropriate action where there is potential conflict with my own
> uncommitted changes, before doing the hg update.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. 'hg log' says the only other
patch I committed touched these files:
        tools/domctrl/create.c
        tools/domctrl/list.c
        tools/domctrl/regs.c

I'd strongly encourage you to keep a local "pristine" tree. This is a
model you may not be familiar with, but it is important. Have a quick
look at http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/KernelPractice .

In general I'd suggest trying to work with the version control system,
instead of around it. If you have a problem or question, you can ask
here, or there are very helpful people on the mercurial mailing list
(http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/MailingList).

You may want to look into the "MQ" Mercurial extension. I've been using
it for a week or two, and for managing lots of small patches it's
extremely helpful. The basic idea is to organize a tree in terms of a
series of patches, each applied in order. When there's a conflict from
upstream, the patch fails in the normal way (with .rej files) and you
can resolve as usual. MQ might not be very useful for large patches
(like the base Xen PPC tree), but at least the merge model is one you're
probably more comfortable with.

Anyways, having a pristine upstream tree would allow you to instantly
answer your question above.

-- 
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center


_______________________________________________
Xen-ppc-devel mailing list
Xen-ppc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ppc-devel