From: Carl Baldwin Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:42:08 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC] undo and redo Message-ID: <20050825214208.GB3311@hpsvcnb.fc.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <20050825210929.GF7461@birddog.com> On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 04:09:29PM -0500, Kirby C. Bohling wrote: > I guess I can see that. I just see it as much easier to manage > multiple undo-redo states manually. I mean, I wouldn't make anyone > use git directly if the difference between the two commands bothers > them. git seems too low a level. I would think one of the > procelains would be be a better level. However, having a unified > interface for all the porcelains seems a reasonable request. Maybe Porcelain is the right place for it. The question would be "Is it important that porcelains handle undo/redo in a way that interoperates?" > > > > Is there something wrong with having flexibility? It seems most of the > > criticism of this feature is that there is already a way to accomplish > > what I want to do. Tools that can't be used flexibly are not tools that > > I like to use. Heck, I'm on UNIX aren't I? > > > > Oops, sorry for the rant. I'm really not in a bad mood... really. I > > hope it didn't sound like that :-). Oh, and I didn't mean to suggest > > that git is not flexible in other regards. I think its great! Moving > > along... > > > > > Assuming your patch creation and application tools capture all the > > > meta-data the SCM has (which I believe git does), it's pretty simple > > > to simulate what you want manaully. With only a handful of > > > commands. > > > > I can simulate git manually too with just a few more commands. Where's > > the cutoff? This analogy *was* a bit extreme. Cheers, Carl -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Carl Baldwin Systems VLSI Laboratory Hewlett Packard Company MS 88 work: 970 898-1523 3404 E. Harmony Rd. work: Carl.N.Baldwin@hp.com Fort Collins, CO 80525 home: Carl@ecBaldwin.net - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -