[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files
From: |
Jan Hudec |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files |
Date: |
Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:56:56 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i |
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 12:01:04 -0500, Adrian Irving-Beer wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 08:09:10AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
> > From a revision-control point of view, putting the diff/patch code
> > in the same branch as the project sounds like bad practice. I
> > suspect security problems would be dwarfed by more immediate
> > concerns. E.g. it would probably also suffer from bootstrapping
> > problems (how do you do the first check out?).
>
> AFAICT, you do it by getting the latest import copy / cacherev, which
> are free of diff/patch issues.
>
> After that, as long as the code is introduced before changesets
> that use it, you can continue to do things the way the tree says to
> do them. You would have to reread the config for every patch
> applied, though.
>
> Plus like =tagging-method, it's possible to commit a change to
> patching in the same patch that actually uses that new patching
> method.
>
> Unlike =tagging-method -- where the next inventory doesn't need occur
> until *after* the new method is in place -- this will cause problems
> for diff/patch, since you need to know how to handle a patch before
> you actually handle it. And if that patch is what updates the
> handling instructions, then it's a catch-22.
>
> All this is circumvented if the patch instructions are included as a
> part of each changeset, though. But that means the *methods* need to
> be coded into the client's 'tla', and the instructions simply say what
> methods apply to what files.
>
> Aside from the security implications, if you used binary patch utils
> in the above system, you'd have to duplicate the binary for every
> single changeset. Even in a stripped, compressed binary, this would
> add up quickly.
No. I believe binaries in the tree should never ever be allowed. There
should a list of tool names with default mapping detected by configure
and linked in the tla binary and additional mappings defineable in
.arch-params. The patch and tle log (yes, it should be in the log, so
it's easy to ask "what tools do I need to check out this branch") should
state list of tools needed to apply that pach (the patch including
mapping files to tools).
> This is all as I understand it, of course.
> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
>
> GNU arch home page:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 'Bulb' Hudec
<address@hidden>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- [Gnu-arch-users] False "binary" files, Sergio Callegari, 2005/02/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] False "binary" files, Johannes Berg, 2005/02/10
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: False "binary" files, Matthieu Moy, 2005/02/10
- [Gnu-arch-users] [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Anand Kumria, 2005/02/11
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Aaron Bentley, 2005/02/11
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Jan Hudec, 2005/02/12
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Stefan Monnier, 2005/02/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Miles Bader, 2005/02/13
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Stefan Monnier, 2005/02/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Adrian Irving-Beer, 2005/02/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files,
Jan Hudec <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Robert Collins, 2005/02/14
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Stefan Monnier, 2005/02/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, tomas, 2005/02/14
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Stefan Monnier, 2005/02/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, tomas, 2005/02/15