Patrick Georgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
>> I'd have thought note_netsync_revision_received or something would be >> OK for that? Maybe one wants a hook that receives all the revisions >> in one go or something? > hmm.. initialize a branch list at the beginning, then check each > incoming revision - could work.. thanks, I didn't think of the hooks! Maybe the existing hooks are sufficient, actually. Or do hooks get evaluated in different lua interpreters? If they're evaluated in the same one, then you could presumably code up something using note_netsync_start, etc.? [...] > That [rebase] could be done by monotone easily, too - but if your > previous revision was pushed, you have two heads now Sure. So you don't (usually) do that. >(just that git doesn't > allow for that, "solving" that issue and leaving the old rev for the > garbage collector, because you push a new head at a completely > different location. > ... unless someone else started work from your old head already - right? Quite. And that's why git-push (by default) checks that your commit is a descendent of the current one---because it causes problems if you've published the old version. Sometimes you really do want to rebase and push the result---I do that regularly, but only on branches I don't expect anyone else to use. So mostly you use rebase on local work---you commit when it makes sense, and then reorganise the changes. Perhaps to improve the reviewability of the changes, or in response to review, or maybe just to incorporate upstream changes (you can merge, of course, but sometimes it makes just as much sense to linearise the changes by moving your changes to the current head). > Which is why I still think that rewriting history is a bad idea. Perhaps. I'd just comment that git users seem to find it works fine and is valuable. I think perhaps you're imagining it gets used in problematic situations where it (mostly) doesn't. > For monotone it would be more like "reapply (from, to) to (new base > rev)". That isn't _too_ different from just merging.. (just that > you have one new revision at the top, instead of 250 revs. copied to > a new location in the DAG) Maybe, though that would only be one part of what "rebase" is used for. I don't know how valuable that would be to monotone users, or whether it would be enough for people considering monotone and git. _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
