Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Topher Cooper (topher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-22 12:34:07
On 3/22/2012 6:04 AM, Martin Geisler wrote:
> This commonly happens when using the bisect command: the tool (Git or
> Mercurial) will assist you in a binary search for a faulty commit. They
> update to the middle of the unchecked range and you have to build and
> test the commit. When doing that, it's annoying if you run into commits
> that fail because of other problems than the one you're investigating.
> Such false positives makes automated bisecting impossible.
A perfect example of my assertion that preserving a historical state (to
try to avoid tool-centric terminology) can be done for multiple reasons,
and that inappropriate detail (inappropriate universally or for a
particular task) interferes with the ability to make effective use of
the historical record. VCS technology that cleanly distinguishes
history appropriate to a particular task would be a great step forward.
How to accomplish this -- without adding such a burden to the user
(e.g., a long list of tags and annotations, to use the terms
generically) that there would be strong motivation to partially or fully
subvert the mechanism or its intent and reduces productivity if that
temptation is resisted -- I haven't the faintest idea. Policy that
forbids preserving states unless they support a particular subset of the
possible uses is certainly a practical, useful and sometime strongly
advisable solution, but it clearly has the downside of excluding or
crippling other uses of the history that may be of value.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk