Aaron Bentley wrote:

quoted text
> Petr Baudis wrote:

>>

>> Another aspect of this is that Git (Linus ;) is very focused on getting

>> the history right, nice and clean (though it does not _mandate_ it and

>> you can just wildly do one commit after another; it just provides tools

>> to easily do it).

>

> Yes, rebasing is very uncommon in the bzr community.  We would rather

> evaluate the complete change than walk through its history.  (Bundles

> only show the changes you made, not the changes you merged from the

> mainline.)

>

> In an earlier form, bundles contained a patch for every revision, and

> people *hated* reading them.  So there's definitely a cultural

> difference there.

Take for example

 "[PATCH 0/6] ref deletion and D/F conflict avoidance with packed-refs."

 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/28150/focus=28154
> This series cleans up the area that was affected by the recent

quoted text
> addition of "packed-refs".  Christian Couder and Jeff King CC'ed

> since they seem to be touching in the general vicinity of the

> code these patches touch.

>

> [1/6] ref locking: allow 'foo' when 'foo/bar' used to exist but not anymore.

> [2/6] refs: minor restructuring of cached refs data.

> [3/6] lock_ref_sha1(): do not sometimes error() and sometimes die().

> [4/6] lock_ref_sha1(): check D/F conflict with packed ref when creating.

> [5/6] delete_ref(): delete packed ref

> [6/6] git-branch: remove D/F check done by hand.

>

> I opted for removing from the packed-ref file when a ref that is

> packed is deleted.

Isn't it easier to review than "bundle", aka. mega-patch?

--

Jakub Narebski

Poland

-

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in

the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org

More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html