On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 17:58:06 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 12:45:45 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 11:59:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
It's not good either. Why would I want to look at a DAG when
the serie of event is strictly linear to begin with ?
Not sure what you mean here. The way it's presented is not a
DAG.
Blue is red, up is down, and the commit graph is not a DAG.
Not sure what you mean. The commit graph is a DAG. The way you
quoted my post made your remark seem to refer to my attempt to
reformat it, which is not presented as a DAG.
"Our source control is completely broken, but that's not a
problem because we developed 3rd party tools to work around
the brokenness"
That's fallacious.
If you can't bissect, it's broken.
By that definition of "broken", all git repositories which use
branch merging are "broken". That includes some of the biggest
open-source projects. Frankly, if you want to stick to that
definition, I have nothing against it.
Listen, you know it's broken because you wrote tools to work
around the brokenness. If it wasn't broken you wouldn't have
written these tools as there would be no need to do so. So
let's not play pretend.
Digger would probably have existed even if D were a monorepo and
squashed PRs' commits from the start, because it also knows how
to satisfy each prior version's build dependencies and how to
invoke the build scripts. Regardless, D is perfectly suitable for
automatic bisection, which is unreasonably awkward with git
itself - Digger makes it much easier. I think there's no shame in
writing domain-specific tools to enhance some functionality of
standard ones.
