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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:00:43 EST