Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the state of the union

[Mikhael Goikhman]

On 18 Aug 2004 09:47:40 -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
> 
>     > They don't think this is a flaw, because one may implicitelly refer to
>     > the changeset in "svn merge".  I replied that, yes, explicit changesets
>     > are kind of redundant for strictly centralized non-distributed systems.
> 
> Not really.  You want/need changesets as soon as you have branch and
> merge commands.  The goal of "Distribution" adds some constraints:
> e.g., changesets have to be "portable" between repositories --- but
> the need for changesets originates from branching and merging, not
> distribution.

This is exactly what I initially thought too, but then changed my mind.
With a centralized system you have always the whole history, so you may
implicitely refer to any changeset in the whole virtual world for any
"branching and merging". This is possible because you have no way to
create an out of the repository branch in a non-distributed system.

(The problem of explicit changesets (get-changeset, apply-changeset) is
orthogonal to the problem of accurate changesets (think inventory ids).)

Regards,
Mikhael.