From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Becker Subject: Re: git versus CVS (versus bk) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 08:17:30 -0800 Message-ID: <20051101161730.GV11488@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> References: <20051031195010.GM11488@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <46a038f90510311228v50743158q80d79e963bd503ce@mail.gmail.com> <20051031213003.GN11488@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <20051101091533.GB11618@pasky.or.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Martin Langhoff , Linus Torvalds , Johannes Schindelin , walt , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Nov 01 17:21:16 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EWyq4-0003jI-CT for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:18:20 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750902AbVKAQSB (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:18:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750904AbVKAQSB (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:18:01 -0500 Received: from rgminet03.oracle.com ([148.87.122.32]:25475 "EHLO rgminet03.oracle.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750840AbVKAQSA (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:18:00 -0500 Received: from rgmsgw02.us.oracle.com (rgmsgw02.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.52]) by rgminet03.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id jA1GHV7w008849; Tue, 1 Nov 2005 09:17:31 -0700 Received: from rgmsgw02.us.oracle.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rgmsgw02.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id jA1GHUF9010226; Tue, 1 Nov 2005 09:17:30 -0700 Received: from ca-server1.us.oracle.com (ca-server1.us.oracle.com [139.185.118.41]) by rgmsgw02.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id jA1GHU51010218 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 1 Nov 2005 09:17:30 -0700 Received: from jlbec by ca-server1.us.oracle.com with local (Exim 4.53) id 1EWypG-0004Pi-57; Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:17:30 -0800 To: Petr Baudis Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051101091533.GB11618@pasky.or.cz> X-Burt-Line: Trees are cool. X-Red-Smith: Ninety feet between bases is perhaps as close as man has ever come to perfection. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:15:33AM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote: > Personally, from my POV it is the intended mode of development only if > you keep strictly topical branches (a single logical change and fixes of > it on top of that). Otherwise, this is horrid because it loses the > _precious_ history and bundles us different changes to a single commit, > which is one of the thing that are wrong on CVS/SVN merging. Here we have the "precious" history vs the "throwaway" history argument again. You are correct, this does look like CVS/Subversion merging. But I'm quite capable of keeping my patches single-topic. Anything that requires multiple patches in a logical separation still needs that extra love. > That said, with a big warning, I would be willing to do something like > cg-merge -s and cg-update -s (s as squash), with a big warning that this Wouldn't it be cg-pull? I guess I'm not conversant enough of all ways to merge branches in cogito. > is suitable only for topical branches. And I think it'd be still much > better to spend the work making StGIT able to track history of changes > to a particular patch. I like quilt for certain work, and what I read from you and Caitlin makes me interested in StGIT for those large changes that require split-out patches. But for simple tasks, I just want to use the SCM, you know? Joel -- "The cynics are right nine times out of ten." - H. L. Mencken Joel Becker Principal Software Developer Oracle E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com Phone: (650) 506-8127