[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla

From: Tom Lord
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:52:15 -0700 (PDT)

    > From: Miles Bader <address@hidden>

    >   * I get the impression from lkml discussion that it has quite strict
    >     ancestry requirements for merging -- arch on the other hand allows
    >     some pretty wild & free merge styles, even on trees that have very
    >     dubious relationships.

Put differently, arch encourages a changeset orientation, including
both changeset-oriented patching and encouragement of "clean, isolated
changeset" commits.

>From this (I'm beginning to piece together from fragmentary accounts
of BK) the BK merging style arises as an important special case
(roughly, our "star-merge") -- but it is starting to sound like we hit
the more profound generalization by quite a bit.

"Oh boy....
 Right, again." -- Laurie Anderson

reply via email to

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