Subject: Re: git versus CVS (versus bk)

From: Joel Becker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 08:17:30 -0800

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: [email-masked]
Phone: (650) 506-8127