|Re: [eigen] Re: converting to Hg|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Re: converting to Hg
- From: Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 08:19:40 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=TZgs3Mb5KkRFC4q3GbsShx+PMfTYsGJY7r5BijIgfJY=; b=I2mIrIkB75IXHAO4gqOWtFUBt4ibMwx7tXktl4jd4enSqZt3BMdIg/gXb3+BNEavzS 8/BTL6baX9F7CHi3Oy13GsmOcAcBFXunH93n4qtIpc4zDhQssZq6iioaSEbSQSq+vAHK UXD7itJdjT8gxjIyapvrx3w686vg9lyaH4RXc=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=bH9ZOfSPV6+vQcUdRVgpuF10gy/seipmTxsUzzQy7QXFVjvXHKgo2cmzVmD5/dkGEf oyhZ/0I1JVgSRIIAPfiIvFkXdddJqzPHrhZgEznf/Zl2FSMK1lXaIZfC2ghdmgKjojCb 6PtHBDC58NVEw197LBp6n8RjY3O9InPe/Kf5M=
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:02 AM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Quick updates:
> 1) We'll wait until next week to do the actual move, as it's more
> convenient for Thomas. Actually, we also need some time to get
> acquainted with Hg.
> 2) Speaking of which, here's an issue i've been trying to figure out.
> Suppose i make a local change (call that commit a), and the same file
> was modified by someone else meanwhile (call that commit b), so before
> pushing my change to the repository I need to pull and merge (call
> that commit c). Fine. Now if I push this to the repository, I'm
> actually pushing not only my useful commit "a", but also the
> merge-commit "c". So the repository now looks like:
> | \
> a b
> | /
> While with SVN, only this history would be recorded:
> - is this a normal thing with a DVCS, that i need to get used to? Does
> it add value, in your experience? Or is this useless cluttering of the
yes this is perfectly normal with a DVCS and it actually better
represents the real progress. You can workaround using "rebase" but
that's not recommended.
> - if it's useless cluttering: how can we avoid it? I guess that's the
> same question as when Gael asked if it was possible to fusion multiple
> commits into 1 commit?
My question was different: my goal was to be able to abuse of local
commits while coding a new features, and once it is somehow ready, I'd
to commit it as a single changeset in order to not clutter the main
repo. I put my solution there:
> 2009/5/7 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> 2009/5/7, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> That aside, the next steps are:
>>> 0) important: no commit anymore in SVN
>> To clarify: this hasn't started yet. You may still commit to SVN. I'll
>> write again to this list when i'm tagging.
>> Also: Gael I remember you said we needed to clarify the workflow with
>> Hg before doing the move. Good point.
>> So the move hasn't started yet.