Update: Re: bzr 0.6 commit problem: parent_id {blah} not in inventory

[John Arbash Meinel]

Erik Bågfors wrote:
> 2005/11/3, Michael Ellerman <michael at ellerman.id.au>:
> 
>>On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 20:24, Andrew S. Townley wrote:
>>
>>>...
>>>Sorry, that got a bit long, but the sort version is that I believe bzr
>>>(or any other VCS) should always allow atomic commits at the single file
>>>level, regardless of what happened in the tree.  This isn't the first
>>>time I've hit a similar issue in the last few days, but I didn't have as
>>>many changes pending, so it wasn't that big of deal.  Yesterday, I had
>>>refactored some bits, and added some significant new bits, all of which
>>>logically hung together as a single unit of functionality.  That still
>>>doesn't mean that I believe they should have all had a blanket log
>>>message.
>>
>>That's one school of thought. The other is that you should never check in
>>something that doesn't build and or work. "Don't break the build!"
>>
>>If you think about it, partial commits allow you to create revisions in
>>history that never actually existed in your working tree, which means you
>>never built or tested them.
> 
> 
> Here you assume that the branch is for one piece of code. That is not
> always the case, it can be documentation, images or a collection of
> useful and connection utilities etc.
> 
> Sometimes it makes sense to commit only part of the tree and a VCS
> should allow it.  It's up to you if you use it or not.

I think people recognize the utility of both approaches, and I fully
believe that bzr is planning on supporting both.

John
=:->

> 
> Regards,
> Erik
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051103/6a2cff81/attachment.pgp