Re: [RFC] Applying a graft to a tree and "rippling" the changes through

Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:

I'm not convinced we ever really _need_ a pure "tree-to-tree" thing, 
although you can always do that by creating an extra commit with no parent 
and thus no history ;)

Nah, it is more like a commit object that records its tree and
another tree as its parent ;-).

I do not think tree-to-tree thing is very useful and that is
what I meant to say by "tree-to-tree is still stronger than
necessary".

What is recorded as a "change" by darcs feels more like "This
makes it to do Y instead of doing X", and it is not about
tree-to-tree.  I know David Roundy is lurking on this list;
David, do you have any comment on this?