Changesets and multiple ancestors

[John A Meinel]

Aaron Bentley wrote:

> John A Meinel wrote:
>
> >Aaron Bentley wrote:
>
>
> >Yes, a changeset is not as nice as a tree->tree merge, because you don't
> >get all of the snapshots. But as long as you get all of the meta
> >information, I think functionality is not reduced.
>
>
> The behavior isn't as nice because when it's time to merge K, because
> the best base is G, and that's not available.
>
> Aaron

Except K has to have G because it branched from it.
Your local tree doesn't have it. But someone among the 2 does.
And if you generated a changeset, you've already done the work, and I
can just merge what you say to.

Now it does take it on faith that the changeset it correctly
representing history.
But you have to do that anyway.

You can go as deep as you like (multiple not-yet-merged branches), but
at the time someone branches, they have that snapshot. Such that they
can use it to generate a merge/changeset later.

John
=:->

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20050628/22be87c6/attachment.pgp