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: VC mode and git Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 21:30:48 +0300 Message-ID: <83h9t3zmef.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86egoeusg2.fsf@example.com> <87384qzxqy.fsf@igel.home> <87h9t4kcaq.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83pp7rzvq8.fsf@gnu.org> <87bnjbk7cj.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1427653889 10819 80.91.229.3 (29 Mar 2015 18:31:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 18:31:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: sva-news@mygooglest.com, schwab@suse.de, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 29 20:31:20 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 1YcHzO-00055K-7X for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 20:31:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57907 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YcHzN-0000UN-8p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 14:31:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33028) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YcHzJ-0000TM-Oa for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 14:31:10 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YcHzG-0006tM-Gs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 14:31:09 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout24.012.net.il ([80.179.55.180]:59042) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YcHzG-0006t1-4W; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 14:31:06 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout24.012.net.il by mtaout24.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NLZ00G00K5R7Q00@mtaout24.012.net.il>; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 21:22:44 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout24.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NLZ008IEKDWO7A0@mtaout24.012.net.il>; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 21:22:44 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87bnjbk7cj.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.180 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:184522 Archived-At: > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" > Cc: rms@gnu.org, > sva-news@mygooglest.com, > schwab@suse.de, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 03:05:00 +0900 >=20 > Eli Zaretskii writes: >=20 > > And the other workflow, the one written by Karl and Stephen, > > suggested a bound branch from the get-go, >=20 > It did, but I don't see your point. You said, repeatedly, that the original instructions didn't use a bound branch, but instead described a "truly distributed workflow". That's factually incorrect. You said, repeatedly, that the bound branch and the rest of BzrForEmacsDevs was written by me, because "Richard, Eli, and Handa screamed". That's factually incorrect, and tells a story that is very different from what really happened: you and Karl were the authors, and my changes were late and purely editorial. > The bound branch was used only for collecting commits; it was > intended to be a perfect mirror of the remote (public) repository a= t > all times. That was what you wanted it to be, but it turned out Bazaar didn't support such "bare" bound branches, so you were forced to change the instructions for the branch to have a tree. Or something to that effect -- the main point here is that the instructions were amended because of a missing feature in Bazaar, not because someone "screamed" for fear of distributed workflows. > In a CVS-like workflow, on the other hand, one works "in" the bound > branch. We worked in the bound branch for one-off changes as well. You just misremember, that's all. The CVS-like workflow was born out of discussions, when Richard asked about something like that, and =C3= =93scar sat down and wrote it. That workflow basically omitted the description of feature branches and a few other "advanced" issues.