[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: RCS: (vc-next-action 1) only New Backend

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: RCS: (vc-next-action 1) only New Backend
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 22:21:45 +0300

> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> From: Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:33:02 +0300
> On 09/21/2015 07:59 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > It can serve both purposes: switch to a branch when REVISION specifies
> > a branch (as in, otherwise commit as the named REVISION.  But
> > that's another issue.
> Why another? Isn't it the main use case for specifying revision in this 
> discussion?

No.  The main issue was forcing a revision number on the current

> > Yes, this also affects all the subsequent commits, but that cannot be
> > had with a dVCS.
> DVCS have a 'switch to branch' operation. It's seemingly different, but 
> if the workflows are similar, the operations might look the same from 
> the VC standpoint.

For switching to another branch, yes, I agree.  But this feature is
useful even when staying on the same branch.

> > Indeed.  But it comes close, and is the most you can have for this
> > functionality.  So instead of saying we don't support it at all, why
> > not use tags and say we support it as best as we can?
> Using tags here would be a low-value feature, as far as I'm concerned 
> (you don't add tags as often as you switch branches). 'git tag' is easy 
> to do from he terminal anyway.
> Further, you don't usually add the tag to the commit right away (at 
> least I don't). Tags usually designate releases or milestones of some 
> kind, so first you commit, then you test the result somehow, and only 
> then you "bless" it with a tag.

IMO, all that, though true, does not invalidate my suggestion.  But I
won't argue anymore.

reply via email to

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