Re: : Networking

From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: Apr 28, 2005, 04:43 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0504280031110.30848-100000@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050428035534.GB30308@mythryan2.michonline.com>

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Ryan Anderson wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Now, all that history I had, with the duplicated imlementation, and
> useless code is in my tree.
> 
> The current (as I understand it) policy is, "We don't want that
> history."  This means that the developer will build a new tree (maybe),
> export his patch and reimport it into a clean tree, making a much
> simpler history graph.

I've been doing just this. I actually import it in pieces, with a commit between each, so it's just like I applied the patch series I'm about to send out. It actually works beautifully, and, someday, I'll have the series up on my site so that a maintainer can just pull it.

Honestly, I'm not interested long-term in my buggy history, even locally; I'm interested in the clean history in which I make a series of self-contained, logical modifications and they get merged upstream.

Show 6 quoted lines

> What Andrew is doing isn't too far from this, in concept, it's just a
> lot more complicated because he's pulling something insane, like 27
> seperate trees, plus several hundred stand alone patches.
> 
> So, there's a *deliberate* desire to drop history and move some content
> around outside of version control.

I think it's more a desire to drop history as it actually happened, and replace it with history as it should have happened. The one thing I would like is the ability to provide merging help to poor souls who got part of the messy history without preserving that history. I think having the head of the clean series have a bunch of lines: "replaces <sha1>", where people aren't supposed to have or want that commit, but if they've merged it, they should know that the clean series includes its content.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*