On Thursday 07 April 2005 11:32, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 08:42 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > PS. Don't bother telling me about subversion. If you must, start > > > reading up on "monotone". That seems to be the most viable alternative, > > > but don't pester the developers so much that they don't get any work > > > done. They are already aware of my problems ;) > > > > One feature I'd want to see in a replacement version control system is > > the ability to _re-order_ patches, and to cherry-pick patches from my > > tree to be sent onwards. The lack of that capability is the main reason > > I always hated BitKeeper. > > I really disliked that in BitKeeper too originally. I argued with Larry > about it, but Larry (correctly, I believe) argued that efficient and > reliable distribution really requires the concept of "history is > immutable". It makes replication much easier when you know that the known > subset _never_ shrinks or changes - you only add on top of it.
However, it would be easy to allow reordering before "publishing" a revision, which would preserve immutability for all published revisions while allowing the patch _author_ the flexibility of reordering/splitting/joining patches when creating them. In other words, a virtuous marriage of the BK model with Andrew's Quilt. Regards, Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
