Lossy operations versus sharing revision data (was: Dulwich on Launchpad)

[Ben Finney]

Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> writes:

> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 23:36 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > All of which can be inferred from the core issue: That a rebase
> > operation is lossy. That's what's at the root of its problems. (At
> > least, that's as I understand it from how it's been described to me
> > many times here.)
> The fact that a rebase operation is lossy isn't really problematic
> unless you've already shared the rebased revisions.

That *is* the problem, though. It's a distinction that's only imposed by
the use of lossy operations.

Such a distinction doesn't even need to be considered in the absence of
lossy operations; every revision is then always consistent for sharing
with others, so there's no need to know ahead of time which will be
shared.

> In this particular case it's my bad for sharing them before I had
> dpushed them.

If an operation makes it unsafe to share revisions with others, it seems
counter to the purpose of a DVCS.

In other words, I don't think it's your bad at all. I think the lossy
operation itself is an attractive nuisance that needs to disappear.

-- 
 \        “I went to the hardware store and bought some used paint. It |
  `\                      was in the shape of a house.” —Steven Wright |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20100303/6763e217/attachment.pgp