[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Future of GNU Arch, bazaar and bazaar-ng ... ?

From: John A Meinel
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Future of GNU Arch, bazaar and bazaar-ng ... ?
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:19:48 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Macintosh/20050716)

Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On 8/23/05, Magnus Therning <address@hidden> wrote:
>>It is however a quite common use case, especially among Linux kernel
> yes, but it's done in StGIT, not GIT (before I'd have said: it's done
> in quilt, not BK). StGIT is a patch-manager that is very adept at
> that. It makes no pretense of keeping track of a project history. It
> keeps track of a stack of patches that are very malleable -- you can
> edit _the patch_ without recommitting. I think it keeps some history
> of your edits of the patch even, but I may be wrong about that.
> The assumption is that the 'floating' and very flexible "patch layer"
> is subjects to edits and reedits, and this does _not_ entere the
> formal history of the project until the patch is ready. Once the patch
> is vetted and ready for merging, it is merged, and all that history of
> a thousand bad-commits and reedits is lost.
> You can say that it is either very valuable history being discarded,
> or that it is just noise, and that in a large project with many people
> involved you want to merge a patch that is readable, clear and
> concise. And that the thousand missteps and edits aren't much use, and
> are just noise.

Then again, this is also handled well by having a mainline and a
micro-branch, and doing a final rollup commit into the mainline.
In fact, that is exactly what StGIT is doing, only they throw away the
microbranch when they are done.

I think having another branch minimizes the total number of concepts,
rather than adding *yet-another* thing to be learned.

> It is not a bad division of roles: there's git doing the hardcore scm
> and coordinating things around the patches that have setttled into
> formalized commits, and stgit allowing people to trade, track and
> reedit patches in more flexible ways. As stgit doesn't even try to
> provide a real, long term history, it is free to be much more
> flexible. The stuff in it, however, is "work-in-progress".
> Needless to say, I'm warming up to the model. ymmv ;)

Well, certainly baz/bzr will never be everything to everyone.

Does anyone else think ymmv looks like "yummy", maybe I'm just hungry.


> cheers,
> martin
> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> GNU arch home page:

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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