On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 09:41 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Robert Collins wrote: > > > On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 11:20 +0200, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > > > > > ---- time ---> > > > > > > --*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*-- <branch> > > > \ / > > > \-*--X--*--/ > > > > > > The branch it used to be on is gone... > > > > In bzr 0.12 this is : > > 2.1.2 > > > > (assuming the first * is numbered '1'.) > > > > These numbers are fairly stable > > And here, by "fairly stable", you really mean "totally idiotic", don't > you? > > Guys, let's be blunt here, and just say you're wrong. The fact is, I've > used a system that uses the same naming bzr does, and I've used it likely > longer and with a bigger project than anybody has likely _ever_ used bzr > for. > > It sounds like bzr is doing _exactly_ what bitkeeper did. > > Those "simple" numbers are totally idiotic. And when I say "totally > idiotic", please go back up a few sentences, and read those again. I know > what I'm talking about. I know probably better than anybody in the bzr > camp. Be as blunt as you want. You're expressing an opinion, and thats fine. I happen to think that we're right : users appear to really appreciate this bit of the UI, and I've not yet seen any evidence of confusion about it - though I will admit there is the possibility of that occurring. I think its completely ok that git and bzr have made different choices in this regard, but I *dont* think our choice is in any regard 'totally idiotic'. [snip examples that are clearly predicated on how bk worked, not on how bzr works]. -Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part