> I'm not sure about the default behaviour though.
>
> As it stands we expect all patches to be applied in the importer, so
> doing anything else is wrong for udd. Perhaps we don't want to enforce
> that, but this will warn if someone is doing the right thing, and won't
> warn if they have all the patches unapplied.
>
> I'm not sure what the default behaviour should be, but do you agree that
> this warning will confuse people?
Hmm, yeah, that's a good question.
Ideally I think we should get to a point where all packages ship with the patches unapplied in the repository, but with hooks that can apply them when you create/update a working tree. Even if everybody agrees about that, it seems pretty far away though.
Perhaps, for now, we can have it warn only if there is a mix of applied and unapplied patches by default? That situation always seems wrong, no matter what your general policy is.
> This looks good, and is nice and small.
Thanks.
> I'm not sure about the default behaviour though.
>
> As it stands we expect all patches to be applied in the importer, so
> doing anything else is wrong for udd. Perhaps we don't want to enforce
> that, but this will warn if someone is doing the right thing, and won't
> warn if they have all the patches unapplied.
>
> I'm not sure what the default behaviour should be, but do you agree that
> this warning will confuse people?
Hmm, yeah, that's a good question.
Ideally I think we should get to a point where all packages ship with the patches unapplied in the repository, but with hooks that can apply them when you create/update a working tree. Even if everybody agrees about that, it seems pretty far away though.
Perhaps, for now, we can have it warn only if there is a mix of applied and unapplied patches by default? That situation always seems wrong, no matter what your general policy is.
Cheers,
Jelmer