From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann Dirson Subject: Re: [RFC] Applying a graft to a tree and "rippling" the changes through Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:27:20 +0100 Message-ID: <20051119132720.GC3393@nowhere.earth> References: <20051117230723.GD26122@nowhere.earth> <437DDDB1.60103@b-i-t.de> <7v3bltea1t.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vr79dcu0j.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Nov 19 14:27:23 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EdSj7-0004tA-LV for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:25:58 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751107AbVKSNZy (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:25:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751108AbVKSNZy (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:25:54 -0500 Received: from smtp3-g19.free.fr ([212.27.42.29]:11987 "EHLO smtp3-g19.free.fr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751107AbVKSNZy (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:25:54 -0500 Received: from nan92-1-81-57-214-146 (nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net [81.57.214.146]) by smtp3-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 711C93727D; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:25:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from dwitch by nan92-1-81-57-214-146 with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EdSkS-0007Ae-Kc; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:27:20 +0100 To: Junio C Hamano Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vr79dcu0j.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:21:16PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I do not think tree-to-tree thing is very useful and that is > what I meant to say by "tree-to-tree is still stronger than > necessary". > > What is recorded as a "change" by darcs feels more like "This > makes it to do Y instead of doing X", and it is not about > tree-to-tree. I'm not sure we could go that path. I see git and darcs as quite opposed in approach, since darcs works by explicitely describing the structure of changes, whereas git allows to use arbitrary ways to derive this structure from the trees. But then if we could reconcile those 2 approaches... Best regards, -- Yann Dirson | Debian-related: | Support Debian GNU/Linux: | Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratis http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check