On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 13:23, Linus Torvalds wrote:
[really interesting and insightful comments about revision graphs]
The thing that's missing here is that 'g' (or 1.7) doesn't just refer to
the change that is 'g'. It's actually a label that implies a point in
time as well as all the change that came before it. Stated differently,
it is a set.
Using your graph:
a -> b -> c -> f
-> d
-> e
and the way that people currently think (and thus speak) of these
things, saying that you're using a version 'e' kernel is ambiguous
because it may or may not have 'c' or 'd'. This ambiguity also
complicates the task of reproducing a tree at some known state later.
You, as the center of the known universe may not need to concern
yourself with such trifles, but speaking as one of those fabled
commercial customers, the ability to say unambiguously say what's been
changed (read: fixed) is really important.
All that said, I like your idea about revision graph compression. My
concerns might simply be mitigated by being able to insert "release"
points (simply a tag that implies/includes all the preceding
changesets).
-
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 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 21:01:23 EST