Re: git versus CVS (versus bk)
- From
Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
- Date
- Nov 1, 2005, 09:15 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20051101091533.GB11618@pasky.or.cz>
- In-Reply-To
- <20051031213003.GN11488@ca-server1.us.oracle.com>
Dear diary, on Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 10:30:03PM CET, I got a letter where Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com> told me that...
Show 16 quoted lines
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 09:28:30AM +1300, Martin Langhoff wrote: > > You can do a diff that spans all the commits and apply it with a new > > commit msg. With cogito: > > > > cg-diff -r from:to | patch -p1 > > I'm well aware of this, my question was rather one of > applicability. First, do we want it to work this way, losing the > history. Second, you'd like the process to be all encompasing if you go > this route. > > ((cd old-repo && cg-diff -r from) | patch -p1) && cg-commit > > or any equivalent. Why should I have to muck with patch and diff, when > I can have a 'pull-as-one' operation. Sure, it's a wrapper, but if its > the intended mode of development, let's make it a first-class citizen.
Personally, from my POV it is the intended mode of development only if you keep strictly topical branches (a single logical change and fixes of it on top of that). Otherwise, this is horrid because it loses the _precious_ history and bundles us different changes to a single commit, which is one of the thing that are wrong on CVS/SVN merging.
That said, with a big warning, I would be willing to do something like cg-merge -s and cg-update -s (s as squash), with a big warning that this is suitable only for topical branches. And I think it'd be still much better to spend the work making StGIT able to track history of changes to a particular patch.
-- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ VI has two modes: the one in which it beeps and the one in which it doesn't.