[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: VC mode and git

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: VC mode and git
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 21:30:48 +0300

> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,
>     address@hidden,
>     address@hidden,
>     address@hidden
> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 03:05:00 +0900
> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>  > And the other workflow, the one written by Karl and Stephen,
>  > suggested a bound branch from the get-go,
> It did, but I don't see your point.

You said, repeatedly, that the original instructions didn't use a
bound branch, but instead described a "truly distributed workflow".
That's factually incorrect.  You said, repeatedly, that the bound
branch and the rest of BzrForEmacsDevs was written by me, because
"Richard, Eli, and Handa screamed".  That's factually incorrect, and
tells a story that is very different from what really happened: you
and Karl were the authors, and my changes were late and purely

> The bound branch was used only for collecting commits; it was
> intended to be a perfect mirror of the remote (public) repository at
> all times.

That was what you wanted it to be, but it turned out Bazaar didn't
support such "bare" bound branches, so you were forced to change the
instructions for the branch to have a tree.  Or something to that
effect -- the main point here is that the instructions were amended
because of a missing feature in Bazaar, not because someone
"screamed" for fear of distributed workflows.

> In a CVS-like workflow, on the other hand, one works "in" the bound
> branch.

We worked in the bound branch for one-off changes as well.  You just
misremember, that's all.  The CVS-like workflow was born out of
discussions, when Richard asked about something like that, and Óscar
sat down and wrote it.  That workflow basically omitted the
description of feature branches and a few other "advanced" issues.

reply via email to

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