[darcs-users] Colin Walters blogs on Arch changesets vs Darcs

Florian Weimer fw at deneb.enyo.de
Mon Nov 22 10:42:23 UTC 2004


* Colin Walters:

>> His argument has certainly some merit.  But as it happens, the arch
>> folks almost *never* send around isolated changesets.  
>
> That is not true at all.  In my experience with Arch development of
> Arch, cherrypicking is equally as frequent as star-merge, if not moreso.
> I'm pretty sure that's the way Tom has merged several of my changesets,
> for example.  

But all this changeset transfer happens under the control of tla,
doesn't it?  In this case, tla's inner workings are just an
implementation detail.

This is different from the situation where you send a base64-encoded
tarball to someone for integration, and the receiver hasn't got
anything besides than this changeset.  Here, inexact patching and
whatnot is really needed.  On the other hand, if you just cherrypick
changes from remote repositories using the tla interface, tla could
generate the *illusion* of isolated changesets even if they had strong
dependencies on the history of the remote project.  (svk shows that
this is really possible.)

But we had this discussion before, and I don't think we can reach any
agreement.

> Not necessarily.  It seems to me one could want previous changesets to
> apply to neither file, or just one.  It depends on the situation.  But
> it is true that while Arch allows you to express "neither" or "one", it
> does not allow for "both".

In almost all cases, the patch will only apply to one of the files,
but you have to try both to see which one it is.  The patch submitter
doesn't know how you refactored the code.




More information about the darcs-users mailing list