Re: VC mode and git

["Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com>]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>:
> Also Bzr.  When I was editing Emacs sources using Bzr, C-x v v
> sent all my changes to the repository on Savannah.
> 
> Perhaps this is because I made a "bound branch".  I used Bzr that way
> because I wanted the same simple behavior that I had had with CVS.
> With Bzr, that was possible.  Why shouldn't it be possible with Git?

This makes your position more understandable.  Bzr bound branches were
a kind of amphibian designed to emulate the way a centralized VCS
works.  They enabled you to retain the mental habits of such systems,
at the cost of making much of the rest of what a DVCS can actually do
rather inconvenient - but you don't notice the latter, precisely
because you've retained those mental habits.

The reason you're getting so much pushback is that most other people
here (including me) have adjusted to the DVCS view of the world, in
which "commit" and "repository sync" are very different operations and
the act of recording a changeset is deliberately separated from the
act of publishing it.  We regard this as a feature.

Nobody can make you change your mind.  Speaking as VC's designer I'm
not *entirely* opposed to adding a switch to make it behave the way
you want, though I don't think it would be a better idea than if
you got your mind in better sync with the way DVCSes actually
work.

But changing the default...that would be a bad idea.  That would be
trying to distort all DVCSes into a CVS-like shape. I won't do that, it
would make too many other people unhappy for what I consider to be
no good reason.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>