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: Stash Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 06:58:11 -0400 Message-ID: References: <86sice77h0.fsf@dod.no> <877ftng0jz.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87lhi1dz00.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1428663536 31466 80.91.229.3 (10 Apr 2015 10:58:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:58:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: sb@dod.no, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 10 12:58:42 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YgWe2-00079I-1O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 12:58:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38573 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YgWe1-0004xs-9P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 06:58:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59374) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YgWdh-0004wF-HT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 06:58:22 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YgWdg-0003Hc-Ch for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 06:58:21 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:50893) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YgWdg-0003HY-9r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 06:58:20 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YgWdX-0001oi-BO; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 06:58:11 -0400 In-reply-to: <87lhi1dz00.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> (stephen@xemacs.org) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:185256 Archived-At: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > As long as I resolve the conflicts myself, which is like unofficial > > rebasing, why should that be recorded anywhere? No one needs to know > > it. > That's true in CVS, because in practice nobody branched, and in > practice "cvs update" was all or nothing; people rarely branched to a > tag earlier than HEAD. In git, however, people *frequently* have > branches that are not up to date, and if your changes involve > conflicts before and after their branch tip, *they* get "screwed" by > spurious conflicts if and when they cherry pick or rebase. I can't fully really understand this, but I think we are miscommunicating and that what you say is not applicable to what I actually want to do. If I find a way to pull in changes in files I have edited, as was normal with CVS and Bzr, eventually I will install one commit containing my changes to the version current at that time. The effect on Savannah will be equivalent to editing in all my changes at that time and installing them immediately. In fact, that is what I am thinking of doing: working in a non-Git copy of the sources, and putting changes them into the Git-managed directory only to install them immediately on Savannah. If that does cause a problem, you're going to have the problem -- it is up to you to convince me not to use that method. But I think you must be mistaken, that it can't cause any problem, and therefore the local merging I'd like to do with Git also could not cause any problem. > > I can't understand that, because it involves things about Git that I > > don't know and probably never will know. > Then you have a lot of nerve making the claims you make above! I have something better than nerve: a mental proof that the two scenarios (see above) are equivalent for everyone other than me. If you claim that one causes problems and admit the other does not, you must be mistaken somewhere. To be charitable, I suppose you do understand Git and you misunderstood what I'd like to do. > If you really never make changes to more than one file (plus > ChangeLog) at a time, you're probably right. Forget that tangent. I've already told you that I develop various changes, over time, in parallel, in various different files. In order to test them all in real use, I must have them all in the sources of the Emacs I am actually using. I must be able to install one change in Savannah when it is ready, without installing the others that are not ready. The methods that others have proposed seem to involve using lots of branches which I'd have to merge in order to test it all. That seems error-prone as well as lots of work. I will discuss my ideas for this with others, off the list. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.