Re: rsync update appears broken now
- From
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
- Date
- Oct 21, 2005, 00:19 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0510201717100.10477@g5.osdl.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.63.0510210157070.14563@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> > > > Oh, they'll need to revert if they want to match Junios history. Otherwise > > they'll always generate yet another merge when they pull. > > So?
History matters. History matters as much as the data does.
> It does not have to be a fast-forward. After all, what is another merge? > Since that merge does not have Junio as committer, close inspection of > the commit will reveal that.
It _does_ have to be a fast-forward, if you expect the tree to have the same content as Junio's.
Even if it merges everything automatically, if the history is different, it could in theory at least merge _differently_ than what Junio had. Plus you'll have a really ugly version history for no good reason.
But yes, it will _work_. It just won't work the way people expect it to, so they'll make bug-reports about not being able to merge automatically, and others will say that they can't re-create it and blame the wrong person.
Linus