[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla

From: Miles Bader
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:35:37 +0900

Zenaan Harkness <address@hidden> writes:
>>   * I get the impression from lkml discussion that it has quite strict
>>     ancestry requirements for merging -- arch on the other hand allows
>>     some pretty wild & free merge styles, even on trees that have very
>>     dubious relationships.
> Yes. And I think that can be a useful thing, to simplify merges
> for the large majority of cases. One of those "layer on arch"
> things I'd guess...

Given that bitkeeper achieves this by saying "you can't merge except in
these restricted cases", I'd first check to see what tla does in those
same cases.

If it (by it, I mean star-merge I guess) screws up, then:  Is there
enough meta-info to figure what to do, but star-merge is not smart
enough?  Or is it a case of there being some useful meta-data that arch
should keep but currently isn't.

If tla gets those cases right, _then_ what should you do?  Add optional
restrictions to what the user is allowed to do???  Add warnings??  Or
document "if you want easy merges, stick to these merging styles"?

`Cars give people wonderful freedom and increase their opportunities.
 But they also destroy the environment, to an extent so drastic that
 they kill all social life' (from _A Pattern Language_)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]