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?
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Nah, it is more like a commit object that records its tree and
another tree as its parent ;-).
I don't think fsck would allow that. At least it wasn't _meant_ to allow
it, and it should complain about an object having the wrong type.
And I'd hope that "git-commit-tree" would refuse to write such a thing.
Linus
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:21:16PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
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'm not sure we could go that path. I see git and darcs as quite
opposed in approach, since darcs works by explicitely describing the
structure of changes, whereas git allows to use arbitrary ways to
derive this structure from the trees.
But then if we could reconcile those 2 approaches...
Best regards,
--
Yann Dirson [off-list ref] |
Debian-related: [off-list ref] | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
| Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratis
http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>