Changeset

[John A Meinel]

Aaron Bentley wrote:

> John A Meinel wrote:
>
>
...

> >There is also the issue with automatic application. If cset.base_id ==
> >branch.last_patch(), you can apply the changeset and commit it, such
> >that you preserve the revision identities.
>
>
> I think it's not the changeset base that matters, it's whether the
> current branch revision is an (possibly indirect) ancestor of the
> changeset being applied.

Actually, I'm talking about an exact patch. If cset.base_id ==
branch.last_patch() then it should be completely possible to add the
revision as just the next entry in revision-history. Think pull as
opposed to merge.
Otherwise if base is in the working trees ancestry, it gets added as a
'merged-revision' and a new commit needs to be created, with it as one
of the parents.

The other interesting trick with merging another persons tree is the
following:

Me-  A - B - C
#    |     \   \
You- + - D - E - F

According to my understanding of what Martin has said, it should be
possible that F is simply a 'pull' of C. Because C's ancestor is in the
list of parents for E.

Another interesting possibility is that if you are merging a line of
development like this:

Me-  A - B - C
#    |         \
You- + - D - - - E

In theory, you can do another way:

Me-  A - B - C
#    |     \   \
You- + - D - E - C


Because the ancestor of C is a parent of E, according to Martin, you can
pull it, rather than merging it.
B->E has to update the tree so that it makes sense.

I'm not sure if I agree with Martin entirely, and it might be that I
misunderstand what he was thinking.
The problem is that when you 'merge' you pull in the changesets, not the
tree state. In my head, since the state of the tree at E is not
identical to the state at B, you cannot just plop C into Your branch.

For instance, it is definitely possible for 'D' to introduce a change
that would conflict with C.

> >>But he who cuts the code gets to make the design decisions.
>
>
> >Naturally, but we all want to work together, right?
>
>
> Sure.  I didn't want to give the impression I was being bossy.  They're
> meant as suggestions, not orders, and I don't have the right to give
> orders, anyway.

I assumed you were being generally playful with the remark, and I was
being playful back. I was asking you for suggestions and you gave them.
Nothing bossy about that.

>
> Aaron

-------------- 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/20050629/dfbcca5b/attachment.pgp