Re: n-heads and patch dependency chains

From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 4, 2006, 20:18 UTC
Message-ID: <e0uk9o$oj6$1@sea.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vhd596ua0.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> I was re-reading the hydra stuff and realized I've seen the "a
> cap that bundles independent tracks together" pattern somewhere
> else in the history of git.
> 
> It is very similar to how "bind commit" would have worked.

[...]

Show 5 quoted lines

> A "bind commit" proposal was made to support subprojects living
> in their own subdirectories.  The picture to describe the commit
> ancestry chain would be almost the same as the above picture,
> except that it did not uncap and recap, but would have built its
> own ancestry chain.

One of versions of "hydra commit" proposals, in the mail which is yet to appear on Gmane git mailing list archive, and Gmane NNTP interface to git mailing list, was to define commit dependency (to which chain commit would get) in the terms of affecting files in the same directory. Simple generalization to subtree (directory and its subdirectories) gives "bind commit for subprojects".

> It had two different kinds of commit relationships: parenthood
> and directory structure binding.

Great minds think alike :-P -- we (Sam and I) were talking on #git about adding "depends-on" field to commit.

In the email to write I would propose that instead of adding "depends-on" field (or "bind") one can at least in prototype stage make parallel development, commiting simultaneously to the tree where history is history, and to the tree where history is dependence, or bind. I hope I will make myself clearer in upcoming message; see Sam post beginning this thread - we want to make both pictures (on the left and on the right) simultaneously.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland