From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:27:34 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20080101171120.GC3830@muc.de> <20080101.190535.32709273.wl@gnu.org> <20080101182742.GE3830@muc.de> <20080101.192802.05328072.wl@gnu.org> <20080103010807.GB13318@kobe.laptop> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1199424555 26388 80.91.229.12 (4 Jan 2008 05:29:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 05:29:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: esr@snark.thyrsus.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, esr@thyrsus.com, acm@muc.de, eliz@gnu.org To: Giorgos Keramidas Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 04 06:29:32 2008 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 1JAf7b-0005Cq-IP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:29:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAf7F-0000Jw-4q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:29:09 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JAf5l-0008FQ-40 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:27:37 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JAf5j-0008Eo-IM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:27:36 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAf5j-0008Eg-5Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:27:35 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JAf5j-0006qB-41 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:27:35 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JAf5i-00028c-E3; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:27:34 -0500 In-reply-to: <20080103010807.GB13318@kobe.laptop> (message from Giorgos Keramidas on Thu, 3 Jan 2008 03:08:08 +0200) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:86039 Archived-At: With CVS committers are encouraged to avoid committing local changes, until a future moment when ``the patch will be done and fully working''. When they reach that future point, the onus of the merging falls on the person who wants to commit. With a distributed SCM system, committing is not so `scary'. It's ok to commit often, and commit short changes. They are local. They won't break the remote tree for anyone else. I don't think it makes sense to compare these two different "commit" operations -- it's like comparing an apple to an orange tree branch. If you compare applies with oranges instead, the difference is much less.