Re: n-heads and patch dependency chains

From: Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net>
Date: Apr 3, 2006, 15:38 UTC
Message-ID: <1144078720.15809.49.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604030727250.3781@g5.osdl.org>

On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 07:29 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> I really think that darcs is just "nice theory", and has nothing to do 
> with real life.
> 
> Terms like "patch calculus" may sound cool and useful, but let's face it, 
> the proof is in the pudding, and quite frankly, I would bet that trying to 
> do something like that on a real project would just be a total disaster.
>
> I want my merges simple. I want them to take a couple of seconds. I 
> don't want to see strange patch dependencies that nobody cares about.

Dave really was right with his keynote comment about nomenclature in Dunedin. I shouldn't even have put the term "patch calculus" in the e-mail body at all :-P

Seriously, though, the rest of the report basically agrees with your position. Sorry if it was rambling and that key message wasn't clear.

We did kind of work out along the way that the best bits of patch calculus were probably obtained with good use of topic branches. Likely if there are any key advances to be made, they will be found in the form of clever ways to manage topic branches.

>  And I very much don't want to see theory over practice.

Theory?  Do I *look* like a theorist?

(looks around sheepishly)

This was valuable cross-culture field research!

(looks around at rather non-plussed eyes)

Hey, I found it quite enlightening, and at least a few other people were amused by the ordeal. And I learned a little bit more about git along the way.

(waits for a 'hear', 'hear'!  silence.)

I'll get me coat.

Sam.