also sprach Bert Wesarg <bert.wesarg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2011.08.02.1506 +0200]: > while I appreciate, that you dig this topic up. I think you are trying > to solve the wrong problem first. My main problem with the TopGit > approach is, that you can't freely change the dependencies of a topic. > This may be not the most common case in distro development. But in my > eyes more problematic than maintaining the meta data. Hello Bert, thank you for taking the time to respond! Could you please try to illuminate me a bit on a use-case of changing dependencies? I am aware that TopGit has had a problem with changing dependencies due to renamed branches, and I think I have a solution to that (encode the dependent ref, not the branch head), but I cannot come up with a use case for freely changing dependencies just like that. > For my first mentioned problem, I think a new 'system' needs to be > 'rebase' based, not merge based like TopGit. The problem with rebasing is that you cannot publish the branches. However, maybe I am simply not seeing the light here. Do you have some further ideas about what this would be like? Please keep in mind that what I seek is not just a way to bring feature branches up-to-date with upstream, but also to have those branches be shared among developers. Thanks, -- martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/ "gott ist tot! und wir haben ihn getötet." - friedrich nietzsche spamtraps: madduck.bogus@xxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)