[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] recent changes in address@hidden, and star-merge an

From: Colin Walters
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] recent changes in address@hidden, and star-merge and update/replay defaults
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:13:39 -0500

On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 23:26, Tom Lord wrote:

> Not necessarily.  Not if `commit --continuation' reappears, for one
> solution.  Other solutions that don't need a project tree (which
> commit would, but that might not be a bad thing for a clone command)
> also exist.

Could you elaborate a bit more?  What solution do you think is best?

> You wished for a solution that didn't involve tracing ancestry.  I
> suggested some ways to do that but, if you didn't like those, I was
> suggesting that perhaps the wish was a fantasy (like "and, I'd like a
> pony").

It just seems unfortunate if that were the only way, given that I think
the most common case is going to be with the continuation being base-0,
so we'll traverse the entire history.

> When there are tags more recent than base-0.   

Why would you do this?  Wouldn't you lose all the changes from previous

> This is an example of
> one of those "edge cases" you sometimes hear Larry McVoy talking
> about. 

Maybe.  It seems like a pretty easy to understand case.

> So far, in arch, we've got those under pretty good control [...]

We're going offtopic here, but - I'm not so sure about that.  What I
think of as edge cases in arch are more like what happens when you
change tagging methods in the middle of a project, or you change the
inventory for some subdirectory in one patch and merge with a patch that
has an inventory change that subtly conflicts with that.  Or something.
Certainly those are the kinds of issues I've seen.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

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