From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Gnus overrides.texi and WEBHACKDEVEL Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 23:40:25 +0900 Message-ID: <878vxt1b1i.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <83ei7makon.fsf@gnu.org> <838vxuaek9.fsf@gnu.org> <877hdebm01.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <831v3ma532.fsf@gnu.org> <8739o2bjci.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83wrle8p8q.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj1t1wuz.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1297003796 7596 80.91.229.12 (6 Feb 2011 14:49:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 14:49:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: tzz@lifelogs.com, ding@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 06 15:49:48 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pm5vv-0003bS-S3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:49:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55094 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pm5vv-0008F1-H6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2011 09:49:47 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59127 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pm5vq-0008Eu-TJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2011 09:49:43 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pm5vo-0004O6-2X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2011 09:49:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:46828) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pm5vh-0004Lg-Pa; Sun, 06 Feb 2011 09:49:34 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D3F97026E; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 23:49:31 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DA99A1A2C59; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 23:40:25 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta29) "garbanzo" ed3b274cc037 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 130.158.97.224 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:135645 gmane.emacs.gnus.general:76411 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" > > Cc: Ted Zlatanov , > > ding@gnus.org, > > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:49:08 +0900 > > > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > > > By "user" I _did_ mean developers in this case. How do we prevent the > > > danger of committing a modified file? > > > > By using a real branch instead of a checkout. > > Are you saying that "bzr push" will somehow catch these problems where > "bzr commit" in a bound branch doesn't? Of course not. I'm saying that one needs to use an appropriate workflow to get the desired behavior. Bazaar is *designed* to make it easy to screw up this way because it is a *feature* for most people. Your mileage apparently varies here. Of course, Bazaar *also* makes it easy to adapt workflows so that one must try to screw up this way. The choice is yours. Note that it *must* be yours. The tool has to trust the user to know what she's doing; if she says "commit", it commits; if she has things so that "commit" to mean "commit and push if possible", it should do that. At least Bazaar gives you that choice. The behavior you dislike here is exactly the behavior you would get from CVS or Subversion in a similar workflow, with no choice. > Even if so, the wiki recommends to use a bound branch, and I assume > most (if not all) committers indeed use that. The wiki does *not* recommend *committing new content* in the bound branch. It recommends *pushing* "through" it to the public repository. (At least it did when I last touched it; wikis being what they are, I don't know if it still recommends that.) There are reasons why I was at such pains to discourage use of checkouts. This is one: you are simply running into the limitations of simplistic workflows. It seems to me that Emacs has arrived at the point where some of the folks (but by far not all) who resisted sophisticated workflows are going to have to bite the bullet and learn them, and specifically learn some of the details of how Bazaar implements them.