| 1 |
On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 2 |
> C Bergström wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> 2) merge commits lead to multiple parents, which breaks a clean and |
| 5 |
>> simple to follow linear history |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> This is either a bug or a feature depending on whether development |
| 8 |
> was actually linear. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it isn't. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
This is really the crux of it. This debate has been running on IRC |
| 12 |
and the lists for well over a year now. I think the proposed workflow |
| 13 |
on the wiki is as good as any I've seen. In six months we'll probably |
| 14 |
decide to change it, but I couldn't tell you how today. I'd rather |
| 15 |
see us move to git and work this stuff out vs just debate the topic |
| 16 |
endlessly on the lists. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The existing cvs structure has its own share of pros and cons. The |
| 19 |
history is a lot cleaner when you look at individual files. On the |
| 20 |
other hand, when you look at tree-wide commits it is a complete mess. |
| 21 |
Even with merges it will be a LOT easier to separate out changes with |
| 22 |
git. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Rich |
Archives