Source control for all dmd source (Git propaganda =)

["Jérôme M. Berger"]

Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Rebase is crucial for some open distributed development model, like the
> Linux kernel one. People send patches, other people review and critize
> them so they get amended and resent. All this *before* the actual commit
> is done. Is amazing how bad tend to get the commits when this model is not
> encouraged (I see "ooops! forgot to add one file in the previous
> commit"-kind of commits everywere and it just make me mad =). Specially
> when you want "bisect" to work! That kind of changes don't even compile
> and break "bisect"!
> 
	So? This is a basic code review procedure: send a patch, have it 
reviewed, send an updated patch. You don't need "rebase" for that.

>> - The second is the Transplant extension, which *copies* the changesets
>> instead of moving them, so you keep the old history (you can always use
>> "strip" to remove it later if you really want to);
> 
> In git you always keep the old history unless you run the gc (or well,
> it's ran automatically if you don't configure it otherwise). You can
> always make a local branch if you *really really* feel like you must keep
> the old history ;)
> 
	The default behaviour should be the safe one (I believe I've heard 
that more than once on this ng ;)

>> - And the third is to simply merge your changes with the incoming changesets with "hg merge".
> 
> That's a merge, not a rebase =)
> 
	The point was that "rebase" doesn't bring all that much advantage 
over a merge.

		Jerome
-- 
mailto:jeberger at free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger at jabber.fr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20090604/8d19ed42/attachment.pgp>