> Even if you are very careful about creating clean changesets,
> this is a useful feature. For example, sometimes the build
> process will patch files, and you don't want to commit those
> changes.
The following has nothing to do with the AMS flame-war and
is certainly not a criticism specifically directed at Jeremy.
Why the f do people put up with crap like that ("sometimes the
build process will patch [source] files")?
And then once they're resigned to it, it winds up popping up
elsewhere, like "this new arch feature would be nice because..."
> 'make clean && tla commit && make'
> Can take a very long time (hours) for something like x.org or OOo.
Isn't that something to beef to x.org and OOo about? How does their
first-year-student-fundamentals bogosity warp into a design requirement
for revision control? What are the relative potential labor costs,
here, of fixing their problems vs. implementing the work-around in
ancillary tools? And who's paying?
Aren't we essentially creating a kind of abstract caste system here?
-t
_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
