On 10/18/06, Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear diary, on Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 02:30:14AM CEST, I got a letter
where Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley@xxxxxxxxxxx> said that...
> Petr Baudis wrote:
> > Another aspect of this is that Git (Linus ;) is very focused on getting
> > the history right, nice and clean (though it does not _mandate_ it and
> > you can just wildly do one commit after another; it just provides tools
> > to easily do it).
>
> Yes, rebasing is very uncommon in the bzr community. We would rather
> evaluate the complete change than walk through its history. (Bundles
> only show the changes you made, not the changes you merged from the
> mainline.)
>
> In an earlier form, bundles contained a patch for every revision, and
> people *hated* reading them. So there's definitely a cultural
> difference there.
BTW, I think what describes the Git's (kernel's) stance very nicely is
what I call the Al Viro's "homework problem":
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/7/176
If I understand you right, the bzr approach is what's described as "the
dumbest kind" there? (No offense meant!)
Yes and no, The bundle includes both the full final thing, and each
step along the way. Each step along the way is something you'll get
when you merge it.
Once merged, it will be "next one" in the description above. It would
typically look something like this in "bzr log"(shortened) In this
example, doing C requires doing A and B as well...
committer: foobar@xxxxxxxxxx
message: merged in C
-------
committer: bar@xxxxxxx
message: opps, fix bug in A
-------
committer: bar@xxxxxxx
message: implement B
-------
committer: bar@xxxxxxx
message: implement A
So, you'll get full history, including errors made :) You can also
see who approved it to this branch (foobar) and who did the actual
work (bar)
/Erik
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html