From: Dennis Kaarsemaker <dennis@kaarsemaker.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:28:59 GMT
Subject: Re: whither merge-tree?
Message-ID: <1456298939.5430.1.camel@kaarsemaker.net>
In-Reply-To: <56CC2B2E.6070203@uni-graz.at>

On di, 2016-02-23 at 10:49 +0100, Stefan Frühwirth wrote:
> On 23.02.2016 at 06:02 Jeff King wrote:
> > > Let's wait and see how many "please don't"s we hear, perhaps,
> > > before
> > > deciding to go 3.?
> > 
> > I'm guessing we won't see much either way. Even Stefan, the
> > original
> > reporter, does not seem to actively be using it, but rather
> > relaying a
> > report.
> 
> I _am_ actively using it. Maybe I was unclear on that topic. I'm in 
> favour of keeping it, because this means I don't have to rewrite
> Chris' 
> Code in order to be able to use the Python library that uses merge-
> tree 
> (Acidfs). But as a sensible human being I want what's best in the
> long 
> run. I leave that up to you as I have no way of assessing that.
> 
> So that's a "please don't" leave the code as-is but provide a 
> (transitional) solution that fixes the reported bug and has the best 
> chances of not causing any more headaches :)

I am also actively using it. It's the only way (I know of) of trying to
preview a merge result without attempting the actual merge, which is
useful in some of my scripts.

-- 
Dennis Kaarsemaker
www.kaarsemaker.net