Re: Commit (JMM-DOUBLEGRAPHICS-1): merge from head 1/2

On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 20:46 -0500, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> Relying on the date for a branch is not the right way. How do you know
> the date of branching ?

Because I branched it? November 22nd 22:00 CET. That's the date you
use to get HEAD as of the branchpoint.

> cvs co -rbranchpoint my_module is so simple to recover the tree "at the
> branchpoint"

cvs co -D my_date my_module, to exclude for simplicity the other ways to
"recover the tree". Precisely the command I'd use before tagging the
bloody branchpoint if it'd make you happy.

> and a "cvs rtag -b -rbranchpoint BRANCH my_module" is more complicated
> to tag ?

I didn't say that, only that it's unnecessary.

> You still haven't offered ANY serious alternative to what I'm offering

Was I joking?

> How do I find out this date Mr Genius ? Beside poking random files out
> of the tree.

You ask. But you know this asking business is tricky, sometimes you
have to do this thing called "ask nicely."

> Wow. Since you reply are so confused, I'm really tempted to say that
> this is your problem. You never said *ANYTHING* about this branch.
>

Does this mean I can unsend all those prior messages? Get a refund on
my wasted bits? And delete the followups from you to save on storage?

Fine, say it's my problem, then you can leave it up to me to, erm,
'solve'. Then you can spend your time on unit testing instead.

> You are telling me, if I read correctly in beetween lines, that there is
> some cron script doing that ? So are are telling me that we might shoot
> ourself in the foot ? BTW, I asked clearly THAT question, never got a
> reply. Where is that script run from ?

Yes, because developers have better things to do than repetitive
administrative toil, like code. We have machines to do that sort of
work for us now, and error handling to make sure that they don't get out
of line. Seeing as multiple conflicts have arisen and it's worked
perfectly as described, I wouldn't be so quick to smash the stocking
frame.

And no, I am not telling you that "we might shoot ourself in the foot,"
you said that. IF, you have a rather more technical explanation of the
foot-shooting bonanza, I'd be glad to hear it.

> > 3) Uwog confirmed it.
> How ?

Something to the effect of "hence the moving sync point" and when you
talked about the head to branch diff and its size, something to the
effect of "that seems about right, yes."

> Which explain the whole confuseness of the stuff that would have been
> clarify if
> 1/ you had dared to reply to the simple question

I'd be more than willing to send you a copy of the mail you sent me. In
fact, I think I'll do just that.

> 2/ you had posted a mail to the mailing list explaining that.

It's not my branch. Uwog emailed the list about it, said to blame me
for the name of it which is true enough, and I thought nothing more of
it, because I had no idea whatsoever that my choice of priorsync would
be so biblically controversial. Looks like I won't make that mistake in
the future.

> genius brain decided to call it assuming that everyone will understand.

I call it <drumroll please> branch. Others call it private head but
that just makes me giggle.

> If you only had asked...

Never saw the need (soory mum!) Next time I'll be sure to fill out form
one thirty-three seven stroke beta, in triplicate, and wait the two week
period for the transaction to clear. Uwog asked for a branch, I made
one. You can rest assured that in the future, I'll make a much bigger
deal out of it.

> No. By arbitrary I mean "undefined". only a symbolic tag or a date can

In the prior section of that manual you love to shake you'll find that
HEAD is indeed explicitly described as a symbolic tag.

Now, all that said, I wish to point to nothing more than that it works.
It worked, it's working, and it'll work some more. Me mum always taught
me that in the open source world, work's what matters.

-MG

P.S. In the future, as long as you're going to accuse me of not
responding (and then reply to my responses), I might as well make life
that much easier on myself and not do so. I dictateth that questions
containing the case-insensitive substring "WTF" shallt not be taken
seriously.
Received on Thu Dec 30 04:04:52 2004