Re: git versus CVS (versus bk)
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 01:00:18PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Do you think anybody is that perfect?
I was being slightly facetious. Of course everyone makes
mistakes and corrects them. But if you _want_ the history, you have to
take it. Otherwise, you are required to throw away the history
completely. And that -- do you want the whole history or none of it --
is the crux of my question.
> What happens in reality is something like this:
[ understood work model snipped ]
Show 5 quoted lines
> I do not know about the kernel tree but I would be surprised if
> any self-respecting developer wouldn't be doing this. The
> review-decomposition-reapplication cycle is *very* important for
> both keeping the public history clean and reviewable, and
> preservign your public image ;-).
I could care less about preserving my public image. I'm an
idiot, I screw up all the time. I only care that the tip of my tree is
respectable.
I've seen arguments from folks on both sides -- the intermediate
history is important, warts and all, vs throw it all out for a clean
public history. It seems that you fall into the second camp.
That's fine, but can we make that work model a first-class
citizen? Can we get a script that pulls one branch as a single,
un-historied (sic) commit into the current branch? If this is The Way,
I should have to be mucking about with many steps of diff/patch (at
least unless my change is large enough to require split patches).
Joel
--
"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from
falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the
government from falling into error."
- Robert H. Jackson
Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127