Messages in this thread | | | From | David Woodhouse <> | Date | 15 Mar 2003 18:51:38 +0000 | Subject | Re: BitBucket: GPL-ed KitBeeper clone |
| |
On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 14:17, Horst von Brand wrote: > The dependency among changes is a partial order, the sequence in which they > were applied is one valid topological sort of that, and the only valid one > known to the SCM. Asking the user to provide the complete dependencies is > error prone at very best. > > > Assuming no ordering is wrong. But likewise, assuming the order in which > > changes _happened_ to occur is also wrong, > > But much less so. > > > and _enforcing_ that is more > > wrong. > > What else can you do?
You could at least allow changesets to be committed out-of-order if they don't touch the same files _at_ _all_. Unless you're going to do a complete compile-and-regression test after every commit, you have no business being anal about change ordering either.
I don't claim this is _easy_, merely that it's a requirement for me to be happy with the thing.
I also _really_ miss the ability to 'pull' while there are uncommitted changes in the checked-out tree. Especially since actually having _committed_ certain one-line compile fixes makes all my _real_ changes depend on them, etc...
-- dwmw2
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |