On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 23:26 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Ross Burton <r...@burtonini.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 12:27 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > >> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009, à 02:21 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit : > >> > Debian patches are debian patches, they control them, and they make > >> > debian releases. If GNOME decides to remove those commits the > >> > distributions will not loose their patches. > >> > >> I think this summarize well the whole thing: we do not want to remove > >> commits. > > > > Agreed. All the way through this thread I've been wondering what > > possible reason there would be for throwing away a commit on a > > historical branch. > > It's not about throwing away commits, it's about throwing away unused > branches. > > I've already explained two ways in which the branches can be thrown > away without loosing the commits although personally I would just > throw the commits away. > > My feeling is that if GNOME were using git at the time of those legacy > commits where made, the people developing them would have kept the > changes locally, and by this time, the commits would have been thrown > away anyway. In practice there's no difference between throwing away > local commits and throwing away public commits that nobody will use.
They are used by software archeologist's, for mining purposes. It is part of the project's history, and you should never regret of your history. -- Germán Póo-Caamaño Concepción - Chile http://www.gnome.org/~gpoo/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
