Re: [RFC] Applying a graft to a tree and "rippling" the changes through

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Nov 17, 2005, 23:28 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0511180026080.18775@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <20051117230723.GD26122@nowhere.earth>

Hi,

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Yann Dirson wrote:

> Current commit objects refer to a child tree, but to parent _commits_.
> Whereas it seems necessary to walk through the history line, and
> easily get a changelog, it is semantically quite not right:

Yes, it is. You base *your* work on *some* work. So, even if the trees may be equal, the base isn't.

> Indeed that emphasizes that the history lines are on living on a
> higher level of abstraction that commits.  Now what if we used
> trees->tree commits, instead of the current commits->tree ones ?

Now, how exactly would that be more abstract? Trees are just that: collections of files. Noone tells you what the idea was, which led from the last tree(s) to this one. That is not abstract.

> Any genius with a solution out there ? :)

Not a genius, but me: Write down your ideas in the commit message. That it the place to put abstract thoughts into.

Ciao, Dscho