Re: git versus CVS (versus bk)

On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:15:33AM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:

Personally, from my POV it is the intended mode of development only if
you keep strictly topical branches (a single logical change and fixes of
it on top of that). Otherwise, this is horrid because it loses the
_precious_ history and bundles us different changes to a single commit,
which is one of the thing that are wrong on CVS/SVN merging.

	Here we have the "precious" history vs the "throwaway" history
argument again.  You are correct, this does look like CVS/Subversion
merging.  But I'm quite capable of keeping my patches single-topic.
Anything that requires multiple patches in a logical separation still
needs that extra love.

That said, with a big warning, I would be willing to do something like
cg-merge -s and cg-update -s (s as squash), with a big warning that this

	Wouldn't it be cg-pull?  I guess I'm not conversant enough of
all ways to merge branches in cogito.

is suitable only for topical branches. And I think it'd be still much
better to spend the work making StGIT able to track history of changes
to a particular patch.

	I like quilt for certain work, and what I read from you and
Caitlin makes me interested in StGIT for those large changes that
require split-out patches.  But for simple tasks, I just want to use the
SCM, you know?

Joel

-- 

"The cynics are right nine times out of ten."  
        - H. L. Mencken

Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127