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: GNU Emacs is on Bazaar now. Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:58:39 +0100 Message-ID: <87k4w6pe9s.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <87d4206n80.fsf@canonical.com> <87637qhjqu.fsf@red-bean.com> <87fx6urat1.fsf@telefonica.net> <871viepn48.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87skaupkr9.fsf@telefonica.net> <87ws06o0mx.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> 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 1262062764 5295 80.91.229.12 (29 Dec 2009 04:59:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:59:24 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 29 05:59:17 2009 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 1NPUAv-0000LG-A5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:59:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46553 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NPUAv-00056S-PG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:59:17 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NPUAr-00056N-EB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:59:13 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NPUAn-00055v-05 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:59:12 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37558 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NPUAm-00055s-QY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:59:08 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:54847) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NPUAm-0003Wq-G4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:59:08 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NPUAi-0000KH-Ny for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:59:04 +0100 Original-Received: from 174.red-83-45-255.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([83.45.255.174]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:59:04 +0100 Original-Received: from ofv by 174.red-83-45-255.dynamicip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:59:04 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 52 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 174.red-83-45-255.dynamicip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.90 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:xaJrl3f5zny+hWW2fU9Sz8b3gKk= 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:118915 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > Óscar Fuentes writes: > > > > Cf. the OP's > > > description of his workflow. It gets in the way of use of Bazaar > > > features like "bzr log -n#" for other developers. > > > > Uh? What's the benefit of log -n# for one-revision merges? > > You didn't read the OP's description of how that ChangeLog got > committed, obviously. Please do that. The OP is trying to follow your recommended workflow, getting very confused and creating the problem. If he were using the centralized workflow, the only advice he would need is "include all modified files on the same commit" and `-log -n#' would be as informative (but less verbose) as with the distributed workflow. > > Well, there is no reason to settle on one Golden Workflow. It is clear > > that we want to introduce new good practices on how the VC history is > > developed (one changeset per purpose, etc) but that practices are not > > incompatible with multiple workflows. > > That's not at all my point. The point is that there is a single > public repository that everybody is aiming at, and that personal > workflows that use centralization features *necessarily* impose that > personal workflow's history on the rest of the project. No. No for one-commit changes. Nobody is recommending to use `push' here. > > distributed workflow is asking for problems. A gradual introduction with > > a simpler workflow helps in several ways. That's a personal decission, > > no other is affected by it. > > You are wrong, at least in Bazaar which supports lightweight checkouts > and bound branches. As soon as you bind a branch, you are at risk of > polluting the public history with personal mistakes. Your convenience > may conflict with what is considered good practice by other developers. Which are those personal mistakes? Committing something you didn't intend to? People here are accustomed to check the changes before committing. They were using CVS for 16 years, you know. And how is that different from merging changes you didn't intend to send upstream, like debug or untested code? It would help a lot to the discussion if instead of saying "this is problematic" the actual problems were described. -- Óscar