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: joel.becker@oracle.com Phone: (650) 506-8127 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Wed Nov 02 03:18:49 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-11-02 03:18:53 EST