Re: [RFC] undo and redo

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 04:09:29PM -0500, Kirby C. Bohling wrote:

I guess I can see that.  I just see it as much easier to manage
multiple undo-redo states manually.  I mean, I wouldn't make anyone
use git directly if the difference between the two commands bothers
them.  git seems too low a level.  I would think one of the
procelains would be be a better level.  However, having a unified
interface for all the porcelains seems a reasonable request.

Maybe Porcelain is the right place for it.  The question would be "Is it
important that porcelains handle undo/redo in a way that interoperates?"

quoted

Is there something wrong with having flexibility?  It seems most of the
criticism of this feature is that there is already a way to accomplish
what I want to do.  Tools that can't be used flexibly are not tools that
I like to use.  Heck, I'm on UNIX aren't I?

Oops, sorry for the rant.  I'm really not in a bad mood... really.  I
hope it didn't sound like that :-).  Oh, and I didn't mean to suggest
that git is not flexible in other regards.  I think its great!  Moving
along...

quoted

Assuming your patch creation and application tools capture all the
meta-data the SCM has (which I believe git does), it's pretty simple
to simulate what you want manaully.  With only a handful of
commands.

I can simulate git manually too with just a few more commands.  Where's
the cutoff?

This analogy *was* a bit extreme.

Cheers,
Carl

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 Carl Baldwin                        Systems VLSI Laboratory
 Hewlett Packard Company
 MS 88                               work: 970 898-1523
 3404 E. Harmony Rd.                 work: Carl.N.Baldwin@hp.com
 Fort Collins, CO 80525              home: Carl@ecBaldwin.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -