On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:26:05 +0000, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... > What? I can't believe you are ignorant enough to not know that each file > in cvs have a version number for each commit on it.
ETOOLONGAGO; this is starting to slip my mind. Yes, files have revision numbers. But they are nearly useless, and... > Or refer to a revision at a certain point in time. ...referring to a specific time is the closest you can do. There is no way to refer to the state of the entire tree at the point a given file was committed in a given revision. ... > See.. That is, in my book (and not only mine) a serious broken pattern. > You do not commit before reviewing. To review, you need a full description of the changes: Diffs, added files, removed files, renamed files. And the intended commit message. The data structure that can already represent this is, well, a commit. This goes doubly when you don't want to commit an entire feature in a single commit - for the review you then need to further specify which changes shall go into which commit. Thus the easiest way to give to a review what you want to commit is to actually commit it and let the reviewers inspect (and the CI test) that. > But ok, if that is how you work, then I guess there is not much I can > learn from you in that area. Oh well. You're a bit hung up on the word 'commit', and the finality of commits in some VCSes, it seems. - Andreas -- "Totally trivial. Famous last words." From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
