2005/10/14, Martin Langhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > This was tested extensively with kernel dev trees, which have some > nasty merges with very convoluted ancestries. I guess that one of the > reasons that the monsters in the dark that Tom talks about don't worry > me is... if anyone has a collection of freak corner cases for merges, > and low tolerance for the scm dropping the ball, it's the linux kernel > project.
I think you over-estimate the linux kernel community (I'm not dissing them, I'm a linux hacker too!).... They are like everybody else -- they are very picky about not _losing_ functionality. In linux's case, that would mean git shouldn't be (generally) worse than BK. However, BK was also pretty screwy in a lot of ways, and judging from git, most linux hackers seem to not really have ever used a system that handles renames really well like arch. The kludges you describe are basically a lame attempt to _try_ and guess information -- file "identity" -- that is available explicitly in arch. -Miles -- Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
