From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Merging emacs-23 into trunk Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:32:37 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87bp5xg2b2.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87wrokegq0.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1289457185 3663 80.91.229.12 (11 Nov 2010 06:33:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:33:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 11 07:33:01 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PGQiO-0004KE-M9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:33:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49792 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PGQiH-0000db-DN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:32:49 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35915 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PGQi7-0000dV-RO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:32:40 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PGQi6-0008C6-Pt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:32:39 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:34730) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PGQi6-0008C0-KW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:32:38 -0500 Original-Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PGQi5-0002Hi-7x; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:32:37 -0500 In-reply-to: <87wrokegq0.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> (stephen@xemacs.org) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.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:132537 Archived-At: > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" > Cc: monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:28:39 +0900 > > > > > Can you make it just skip merging configure altogether? > > > > > > Not really. That's inherent in the philosophy of atomic commits and > > > DAG-based merging. > > > > I don't follow. Do you have in mind a revision where configure was > > committed together with other files? If so, I understand. But if it > > was committed alone, what is the issue with atomic commits? > > The words "philosophy" and "and" in my statement are crucial. Of > course we've learned how to split an atom. But then it's not an atom > any more. Similarly, if you are going to commit changes to a > generated file, then it should be committed with the source changes > that generate them. If committing configure alone is all we need to avoid the problem, we could decide to do that, philosophical and atom-splitting issues notwithstanding. Alternatively, "bzr revert configure" before committing the merges should also do.