From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] apply.c: a fix and an enhancement Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:20:53 -0700 Message-ID: <7vhdeme5ju.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <7vzmsewzik.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20050722181800.GU20369@mythryan2.michonline.com> <7vsly6vd2b.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <42E1571B.8070108@gmail.com> <7vhdempmgg.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vfyu6jvrm.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: A Large Angry SCM , Ryan Anderson , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jul 23 02:21:33 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dw7li-0007go-A2 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:21:30 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262246AbVGWAVD (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:21:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262251AbVGWAVD (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:21:03 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao09.cox.net ([68.230.241.30]:22001 "EHLO fed1rmmtao09.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262246AbVGWAU5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:20:57 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao09.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050723002055.ICMY7275.fed1rmmtao09.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:20:55 -0400 To: Linus Torvalds User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds writes: > In other words, if it's per-project, then that implies that every single > developer has to agree on the same thing. Which just not possible - it > makes no sense. I agree 75%. See the bottom for the rest 25%. > In contrast, if you have a separate local _branch_ that maintains a > ".gitinfo" totally separately (no common commits at all), then you can > choose to propagate/participate in that branch or not, as you wish, on a > per-developer basis. Ah, finally the lightbulb moment. And I think what you outlined using "git switch" in another message is a clean way to do it if somebody wanted to. > For example, what if I tried to dig out even _more_ information than what > is in the BK CVS archives? Or if I wanted to have just the 2.6.0-> > history? Good examples; I stand corrected. That is also per "group of people who share the same view", i.e. per-developer thing that may be propagated among consenting branch participants. > What you're saying is that people can be happy if they just > don't use a stupid decision. That's a sure sign that the > decision shouldn't have been made in the first place. I am not saying it that strongly. Rather, people can be happy if they do not have to use a decision that they feel stupid. In circles you are part of, especially in a project like the kernel where hundreds of people participate worldwode, I can see that having project-wide preference (or policy) and maintaining it may not make _any_ sense. But on the other hand, it is my understanding that it is a common practice to enforce some centralized policy (I am thinking about pre-commit hooks in particular) in a corporate settings, and for people wanting to have that kind of thing, it is not even a stupid decision.