Is copying whole third-party source trees into svn rather than applying patches to upstream a widely-accepted svn anti-pattern? Uhg.
-
-
Replying to @RichFelker
@RichFelker it's a very widely-accepted pattern everywhere. Argument for is clear revision history for local changes. Can't stand it myself1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @damienmiller
@damienmiller With git you can use a local, throwaway repo for that and just keep the output of format-patch in your project repo for hist.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
@damienmiller And unlike the horrible "copy the upstream" approach you can sanely rebase on new upstream.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
@RichFelker right, though people often apply the "don't ever rebase" religion to imported third-party software too...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @damienmiller
@damienmiller And the alternative is perpetually maintaining a fork of old crap... *sigh*
3:17 PM - 21 Apr 2016
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.