On 09.08.2014 22:02, Mark A. Flacy wrote:
On Saturday, August 09, 2014 08:22:40 PM Dirk Bächle wrote:
On 09.08.2014 20:05, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sat, 2014-08-09 at 13:33 -0400, William Blevins wrote:
[...]
Our problem is that it seems that maintaining a long running
synchronized clone of a default branch leads Mercurial to having
problems on a final merge. Advice from a Mercurial expert was that
actually the result was fine, just ugly. Gary felt it was an ugly too
far and that we should not use that way of merging. Nothing wrong there
per se. It just brings into stark relief that we do not have a
reasonable workflow just now.
I still don't feel the logic behind this reasoning. For me, the fact
that the end result looks "messy" doesn't have anything to do with the
workflow itself.
Well, the "messy" bit is information that nobody really cares about; so why
keep it around?
I may have read Russel's comment wrong, and understood it like "The
result is messy, so we don't have a proper workflow and need to switch
the VCS.". This would be wrong in my opinion..but this meaning probably
wasn't intended anyway.
About "information": I'm a fan of keeping history as it
happens...including errors, and their immediate fixes. Today, I don't
know what information I might need tomorrow, or in 2 weeks/months. The
seemingly unusable commit (or even only its checkin comment) that I
rebase/squash away today, might serve as a starting point for a fresh
approach at a later time. Highly speculative, I know...but that's how I
see it.
Dirk
_______________________________________________
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
