Hi, On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, David Symonds wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > But I agree with others that you should think about sane > > implementations of rebase/merge with partial checkouts. > > I, too, was shortly going to attempt a partial checkout/clone > implementation. The intended context of my implementation was similar to > the KDE scenario in that you might only care about /pkgA and /pkgB, so > changes to /pkgC are usually irrelevant and independent to your > work-flow, so I was planning to assume a simplistic "theirs" merge > strategy for /pkgC, etc. That might work for the people who have partial checkouts. But I see a lot of problems looming there: just imagine a documenter rebased on top of 'master', and _then_ on top of a branch by another documenter, which is newer with respect to documentation, but older with respect to the code. It is _really_ easy to break code if you have no intention to test the result of a merge, _especially_ so when it is a "theirs" strategy. Ciao, Dscho - 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
