[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers

From: Aaron Bentley
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:48:18 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4

Tom Lord wrote:

    > From: Aaron Bentley <address@hidden>

> If we ever want tla to behave properly when tagging and commits are > mixed,
Stop there.  There's different values for "properly" there.

I disagree about that. I can't imagine circumstances in which it would be desirable to apply unrelated patches to a tree. And if there were, surely one could do it with replay --list or something.

> it's essential to follow ancestry, not namespace relationships.
It may be desirable to permit both options but it is essential to
provide the option of using namespace relationships.

If you like. AFAIK, there isn't any support for ancestry-based replays at the moment. And personally, I'm lukewarm about mixing tags and commits. But I feel they should either be supported or forbidden.

> So we need to let go of the idea that replay and update are related, or > else make replay follow ancestry.


Right, as far as I know. Update is an ancestry-sensitive three-tree merge. Replay just happens to work like build_revision () in the common case. It's not that one's disposable, it's that they're not related.

... the existing operations are pretty good as they are.   You want to
add new ones to the toolbox more often than you want to melt down the
hammers to make screwdrivers.

I'm just saying "replay version" is a hack that works with current practice. It shouldn't be compared to ancestry-sensitive operations like update and merge. I'm not suggesting tossing anything except for a comparison.

Modulo one pending bug, merging into local trees does a pretty good
job of handling non-source files reasonably.  You have to be careful
not to mess that up to much when deploying "get --clobber".

Yeah, on second thought, the performance difference would be pretty small, too. Better to use undo for the purpose.


reply via email to

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