[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Default version for star-merge
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Default version for star-merge |
Date: |
Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:23:22 -0700 (PDT) |
> From: address@hidden (James Blackwell)
> I very recently taught a friend how to use arch. A day later, he came back
> to me and essentially asked: Since star-merge is commonly used to merge
> changes from the version you originally tagged from, why not make
> the default version to star-merge the version you tagged from.
> My initial reaction was a knee jerk one; the concept of parentage is much
> too weak to have any sort of default version for a tool like star-merge.
> But the more I thought about it, with a star topology, there really is a
> parent-child relationship between the center of the star and the spokes.
> Whats more, the idea that changes propogate both ways is a naive one; for
> each person at the center of the star that is star-merging/cherry picking
> from his spokes, there are anywhere from one to dozens of people merging
> from him.
> Considering how star-merge happens to have a common case (the spoke
> star-merging from center), then we can easily locate a sane default
> argument for star-merge -- the version that we originally tagged from.
> I actually think this is a good idea. Doing this slightly encourages
> people to follow their parent tree a little closer.
It's an interesting idea but I worry that it will lead to mistakes.
Roughly speaking, only _half_ of the uses of star-merge are from the
branched-from version. The other half are from a version branched
from yours. In other words, half are of a parent into a child branch;
the other half are of a child into its parent branch.
Wouldn't habituating user's to omit the parameter for half of those
cases inevitably cause mistakes where a merge-from-child was intended
but a merge-from-parent occured? In a tree of branches of depth
greater than 1, that kind of mistake, especially if not noticed right
away, could be a real mess.
(The current default for FROM, to use the tree-version, is an odd
choice in some sense. It optimizes a non-common-case of the command.
But it makes more sense when you realize that, as a default that might
happen accidentally, it is at least far more likely to be a harmless
mistake.)
-t
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Default version for star-merge (and more), (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Default version for star-merge (and more), Tom Lord, 2004/07/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Default version for star-merge (and more), Aaron Bentley, 2004/07/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Default version for star-merge (and more), Tom Lord, 2004/07/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Default version for star-merge (and more), James Blackwell, 2004/07/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Default version for star-merge (and more), Tom Lord, 2004/07/14
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Default version for star-merge, Stefan Monnier, 2004/07/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Default version for star-merge, Tom Lord, 2004/07/13
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Default version for star-merge,
Tom Lord <=
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Default version for star-merge, Tom Lord, 2004/07/12
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Default version for star-merge, Rob Weir, 2004/07/13