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.
> 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?
-- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513 - 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