Re: [hatari-devel] Enhanced keymap support |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/hatari-devel Archives
]
- To: hatari-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [hatari-devel] Enhanced keymap support
- From: Thomas Huth <th.huth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:08:49 +0000
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1728990530; bh=VwcRObphVMkPylf9d89aKxSabbQwda92qbdUpL3oBCA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:From; b=W7ef27IfTWsTECVe7HiWIIvGbzQUOajdpOOod2jc53tPaKWZkX7h8HDDeoxLliJZh SxKXuJ0Ggt1NtsrUva16dBm4OI7mI+qMtU2Igw8p2YDmABAIsQG96a2VjpPdgrU0Cb We1/s3anV2AEnNOd2C4pKfTd/AHQLRGqWSknAbGObb6oIlUboUsUPC04PJH2vL2gxh 30SuaLNXiFbKdM3M6hJU7L3efCdZP+WbRIVq6MVgEKqd8t/9jXZN1e7GoHV1rMulnB fcFbyvDT8KtoBYuP38uWK8zTDby+Yu+1GnaAyzw0lPgThiFLQ9gzsLpOv42GybF2Eq EJHmqspvh0xjg==
On 15/10/2024 11.52, Yves Le Berre wrote:
Hello,
Since modifications in keymap.c made by Thomas on 2024-10-12 18:33:21 (GMT)
(commit a22de5759741eaf8c6bf95ff7a0e128d516a11e5), I cannot find a way to
apply enhanced keymap patch series as these modifications are slightly
different from
those in 0001-Keymap_LoadRemapFile-refactor-rewrite.patch and impact other
in series.
I could revert Thomas patch before applying enhanced keymap patch series but
I'm not
sure if any other changes are planned on keymap.c in a near future and I'm
not familiar
with git.
In such cases, you basically do this: Have a branch ready with the patches
based on an upstream commit where they still applied fine. Then:
git rebase -i master
Remove the first patch from the list (which is already in upstream). Save
and close the editor to continue.
Git will complain in other patches that it cannot apply patches cleanly.
Edit the files with the conflicts to solve them, then:
git add ...filenamesthathavebeenchanged...
git rebase --continue
And you should finally have a fixed series with one patch less to drag along.
Could you tell if enhanced keymap patch series should be abandoned ?
IMHO yes, I think we should rather try to follow up with the
SDL_EVENT_TEXT_INPUT idea if we really want to support more character mappings.
Thomas