On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 10:17:23AM -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
> David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> said:
> > On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 01:03, Horst von Brand wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Wrong. Edit a header adding a new type T. Later change an existing file
> > > that already includes said header to use T. Change a function, fix most
> > > uses. Find a wrong usage later and fix it separately. Change something, fix
> > > its Documentation/ later. Note how you can come up with dependent changes
> > > that _can't_ be detected automatically.
>
> > True. And this is the main reason I hate BitKeeper. I really don't give
> > a rat's arse about the licence -- but I object strongly to the way it
> > enforces a false ordering of changesets.
>
> 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.
No kidding. BK is draconian about it and that makes it work for the naive
users but the really smart ones have to work around the restriction.
Arch is closer to what you want, it allows out of order changesets. You'll
find problems with that as well, in fact, a lot of problems, but it is
what you guys _say_ you want.
-- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:00:43 EST