[MPlayer-DOCS] DOCS/tech/cvs-howto.txt

[The Wanderer]

Ivo wrote:

> On Friday 23 June 2006 00:41, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> 
>> Somewhere it should be mentioned that you should *always*
>> doublecheck changes with 'svn diff' before finally committing.
>> Also, the distinction of the workflow between maintained and
>> unmaintained code could be a bit more explicit.
> 
> Made all the changes you and The Wanderer suggested and some more. I
> am undecided on how to increase the distinction of the workflow
> between maintained and unmaintained code. I could add some text to
> III.4 or make the note at the bottom a bit longer and more elaborate.
> I'll think about it.

A few more notes:

> 4. Check the patch:
> 
>   Checkout another, clean source tree and verify your patch:

Looks like you missed one - "Check out", as under 1.

>     svn checkout svn://svn.mplayerhq.hu/mplayer/trunk/ clean
>     cd clean
>     patch --dry-run < ../my_changes.patch
> 
>   If there are no errors, you can apply your patch:
> 
>     patch < ../my_changes.patch

These should, I believe, be equivalent to 'patch -p0' - but is there any
reason not to give that option explicitly? I certainly invoke it that
way whenever applying full-path patches, and it seems like vaguely good
practice in that it provides parallelism between the stripping levels in
terms of saying what is being done.

> 7. Commit the patch:
> 
>   If your patch is accepted, double check if your source tree contains the
>   most recent version of your patch with svn diff! After verifying that you
>   met these conditions, commit with:

This doesn't flow well to me (and I'm not quite sure it's what Diego
meant anyway - in my experience, the danger for which it is recommended
to check with svn diff is that someone else might have committed a
change to the same files, either since you last updated (if you keep a
pristine copy which you use for all commits) or in the brief period
since you made the checkout (if this is a new tree), and that you might
inadvertently overwrite their changes; I invariably make a paranoid
last-second check of this nature after having written the commit
message, seconds at most before the final commit).

I'd suggest something like "If your patch is accepted, use svn diff to
make sure that the only differences between your working copy and the
main source tree are the ones you want to commit. then commit your
changes with:"

The problem with that is its repetition of "commit" twice in such short
succession, but I just woke up and I haven't been able to come up with
any reasonable alternatives (I considered "apply" in place of the second
one, but that doesn't quite seem to work for some reason). I still think
it's better than the current form.


Beyond that, the only things I could object to are either matters of
pause expression (commas vs. parentheses vs. emdashes vs. ellipses vs.
semicolons, etc.), all of which are minor in this case, or matters of
grammatical vagueness - which are also minor and which I sincerely doubt
I could greatly improve on, at least at present.

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.