<11762.1170465777 at athyra>Mike Kupfer writes: > >>>>> "Danek" == Danek Duvall <danek.duvall at sun.com> writes: > > Danek> On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 08:19:19PM -0800, Jan Setje-Eilers wrote: > > >> To be honest, I'm starting to regret not finding the time to get an > >> exception to the single delta rule and getting the history in that > >> way. > > Danek> FWIW, I think I would have preferred that. > > I expect that to be a little awkward. As soon as you get multiple deltas > (trying to get the local changes right), you then have to do a dance to > get from > > (gate rev + latest upstream + local changes in many deltas) > > to > > (gate rev + latest upstream + local changes in 1 delta) > > I'd feel better about it if we had (better) tool support for that > operation.
I don't think anyone was suggesting allowing actually multiple deltas. The case in which we might have considered talking about an exception would have involved a create (so no pre-existing gate rev), in essence introducing one bit of external history from the beginning. That said, I really don't see that those would be useful for all that long after integration; 6 months perhaps. For major putbacks folks keep around project gates for that sort of time anyway. So this is all probably a non-issue and we should simply not introduce dead code. -jan
