From: Daniel Barkalow Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 04:43:58 GMT Subject: Re: : Networking Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20050428035534.GB30308@mythryan2.michonline.com> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Ryan Anderson wrote: > 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. > 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 ", 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*