[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Stash

From: Richard Stallman
Subject: Re: Stash
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 06:58:11 -0400

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  >  > As long as I resolve the conflicts myself, which is like unofficial
  >  > rebasing, why should that be recorded anywhere?  No one needs to know
  >  > it.

  > That's true in CVS, because in practice nobody branched, and in
  > practice "cvs update" was all or nothing; people rarely branched to a
  > tag earlier than HEAD.  In git, however, people *frequently* have
  > branches that are not up to date, and if your changes involve
  > conflicts before and after their branch tip, *they* get "screwed" by
  > spurious conflicts if and when they cherry pick or rebase.

I can't fully really understand this, but I think we are
miscommunicating and that what you say is not applicable to what I
actually want to do.

If I find a way to pull in changes in files I have edited, as was
normal with CVS and Bzr, eventually I will install one commit
containing my changes to the version current at that time.  The effect
on Savannah will be equivalent to editing in all my changes at that
time and installing them immediately.

In fact, that is what I am thinking of doing: working in a non-Git
copy of the sources, and putting changes them into the Git-managed
directory only to install them immediately on Savannah.

If that does cause a problem, you're going to have the problem -- it
is up to you to convince me not to use that method.

But I think you must be mistaken, that it can't cause any problem, and
therefore the local merging I'd like to do with Git also could not
cause any problem.

  >  > I can't understand that, because it involves things about Git that I
  >  > don't know and probably never will know.

  > Then you have a lot of nerve making the claims you make above!

I have something better than nerve: a mental proof that the two
scenarios (see above) are equivalent for everyone other than me.  If
you claim that one causes problems and admit the other does not, you
must be mistaken somewhere.  To be charitable, I suppose you do
understand Git and you misunderstood what I'd like to do.

  > If you really never make changes to more than one file (plus
  > ChangeLog) at a time, you're probably right.

Forget that tangent.  I've already told you that I develop various
changes, over time, in parallel, in various different files.

In order to test them all in real use, I must have them all in the
sources of the Emacs I am actually using.

I must be able to install one change in Savannah when it is ready,
without installing the others that are not ready.

The methods that others have proposed seem to involve using lots of
branches which I'd have to merge in order to test it all.  That seems
error-prone as well as lots of work.

I will discuss my ideas for this with others, off the list.

Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

reply via email to

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