From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Workflow to accumulate individual changes? Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:25:20 +0100 Message-ID: <87k4w1iklb.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <87637of4y8.fsf@kobe.laptop> <87oclfdzs2.fsf@kobe.laptop> <87hbr6jwsy.fsf@telefonica.net> <83my0yfc9g.fsf@gnu.org> <838wchgais.fsf@gnu.org> <878wchfxcn.fsf@red-bean.com> <833a2pfvl2.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1262381165 2551 80.91.229.12 (1 Jan 2010 21:26:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 21:26:05 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 01 22:25:58 2010 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 4.50) id 1NQp0P-00014x-Dk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:25:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57132 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NQp0P-0000R7-N6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:25:57 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NQp0K-0000Qt-4f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:25:52 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NQp0F-0000QD-OT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:25:51 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52202 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NQp0F-0000QA-M0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:25:47 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:35932) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NQp0F-0006dl-CW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:25:47 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NQp0A-0000zd-O0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:25:42 +0100 Original-Received: from 217.red-88-24-214.staticip.rima-tde.net ([88.24.214.217]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:25:42 +0100 Original-Received: from ofv by 217.red-88-24-214.staticip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:25:42 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 29 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.red-88-24-214.staticip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.90 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:0ayq2+Q9XYLGGsfZDC80eCd6bI8= X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:119230 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> If you tweak a commit message on the savannah branch, bzr has no >> mechanism for conveying that tweak to the other branches > > Well, that's just it: bzr _should_ have such a mechanism. I really > don't care if modifying a commit message would count as a new revision > of the tree, all I care is that "bzr log" and friends show the > modified commit message by default (if there would be a way to see the > original one before the fix, that's okay too). By replacing a revision with another revision, you are effectively breaking the mirror branches on all sites that updated/pulled before the "fix" (you make them diverge.) And that's the easier part. You will cause lots of problems, really. A mechanism that notices that certain revision replaces a previous one and propagates the fact when two branches communicate, not only would be very complex, but quite questionable from the ethical POV, as it could be used to modify or destroy VC history by a malicious individual. As for the commit message and other metadata such as the committer name being part of the hashed data, it is considered a fundamental requirement for keeping history integrity. [snip] -- Óscar