From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carl Baldwin Subject: Re: [RFC] undo and redo Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:42:08 -0600 Organization: Hewlett Packard Message-ID: <20050825214208.GB3311@hpsvcnb.fc.hp.com> References: <20050824204736.GA13194@hpsvcnb.fc.hp.com> <7vd5o3ar4a.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20050825024134.GA31886@hpsvcnb.fc.hp.com> <7v1x4izjtm.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20050825163201.GA3944@hpsvcnb.fc.hp.com> <20050825195918.GD7461@birddog.com> <20050825203733.GA26539@hpsvcnb.fc.hp.com> <20050825210929.GF7461@birddog.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Carl Baldwin , Junio C Hamano , Daniel Barkalow , Linus Torvalds , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Aug 25 23:44:16 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E8PUQ-00063M-5u for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:42:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964859AbVHYVmX (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:42:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964860AbVHYVmX (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:42:23 -0400 Received: from atlrel9.hp.com ([156.153.255.214]:53224 "EHLO atlrel9.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964859AbVHYVmW (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:42:22 -0400 Received: from smtp1.fc.hp.com (smtp1.fc.hp.com [15.15.136.127]) by atlrel9.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6776E14FDC; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:42:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hpsvcnb.fc.hp.com (hpsvcnb.fc.hp.com [15.6.94.42]) by smtp1.fc.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE243854C; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:42:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by hpsvcnb.fc.hp.com (Postfix, from userid 21523) id E5E5F2B091; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:42:08 -0600 (MDT) To: "Kirby C. Bohling" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050825210929.GF7461@birddog.com> X-Origin: hpescnb.fc.hp.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 04:09:29PM -0500, Kirby C. Bohling wrote: > I guess I can see that. I just see it as much easier to manage > multiple undo-redo states manually. I mean, I wouldn't make anyone > use git directly if the difference between the two commands bothers > them. git seems too low a level. I would think one of the > procelains would be be a better level. However, having a unified > interface for all the porcelains seems a reasonable request. Maybe Porcelain is the right place for it. The question would be "Is it important that porcelains handle undo/redo in a way that interoperates?" > > > > Is there something wrong with having flexibility? It seems most of the > > criticism of this feature is that there is already a way to accomplish > > what I want to do. Tools that can't be used flexibly are not tools that > > I like to use. Heck, I'm on UNIX aren't I? > > > > Oops, sorry for the rant. I'm really not in a bad mood... really. I > > hope it didn't sound like that :-). Oh, and I didn't mean to suggest > > that git is not flexible in other regards. I think its great! Moving > > along... > > > > > Assuming your patch creation and application tools capture all the > > > meta-data the SCM has (which I believe git does), it's pretty simple > > > to simulate what you want manaully. With only a handful of > > > commands. > > > > I can simulate git manually too with just a few more commands. Where's > > the cutoff? This analogy *was* a bit extreme. Cheers, Carl -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Carl Baldwin Systems VLSI Laboratory Hewlett Packard Company MS 88 work: 970 898-1523 3404 E. Harmony Rd. work: Carl.N.Baldwin@hp.com Fort Collins, CO 80525 home: Carl@ecBaldwin.net - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -