Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [bug] import revisions should have a distinctive header in their patchlogs

[Andrew Suffield]

On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 08:21:23AM -0400, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> >Why wouldn't somebody just avoid this mess and just start a new branch?
> 
> It comes down to wanting to fix mistakes.  I got myself very confused 
> with aba initially, because I wanted to use a particular branch name. 
> So I kept trying to change history, doing it wrong, and getting bizarre 
> changesets (since it was comparing against a previous timeline).
> 
> The two cases I can see:
> 1. Screwed up initial import (maybe they omitted stuff or put stuff in 
> that didn't belong)
> 2. Change of tagging method (Import revisions should be smaller than the 
> changeset that represents every file being deleted and re-added)
> 
> People are often very particular about the names they use.  Tom wants 
> the namespace to be accomodating to users.

From a slightly different perspective:

[Vertical lines are branches, + is a changeset]

    ___ (import)
     |
     |
     +  (commit)
     |\
     | \
     |  \
     +   \
     |    \
     |     \
     |      \
     +      + (tag)
     |\     |
     | \___ |
     |     \|
     +      +
     |
     |
     |
     + (commit)
     |\
     | \
     |  \
     +   \
     |\   \
     | \   \
     |  \   \
     +   |  + (tag)
     |   |  |
     |    \ |
     |     \|
     +      +
     |
     |
     |     
     +     ___ (import)
     |      |
     |      |
     |      |
     +      +
     |      |
    ...    ...


It's all a matter of what you want the history graph to look like. "No
history" (import) is not generally useful, but there's no reason why
it shouldn't be possible.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature