On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Matthew Knepley wrote: > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: > > > These are ridiculous strawmen. Git is a tool for managing source code, > > and > > > we are asking for a very simple and sensible source code management rule. > > > It is truly simple, apart from devising an implementation in Git. > > > > My point is that it's not that simple to define precisely within Git's > > relatively simple data model. Barry suggests that Git should be made > > more complicated so that it can enforce various workflow policies, but I > > don't think that complexity is justified and I think it would cause > > other problems (like security vulnerabilities and extra constraints when > > manipulating branches). > > > > You are saying: > > - This is a sensible policy > > - It would improve our workflow > > but > > - Automating it is too hard, so people should do it by hand > > You come to this conclusion because > > - It is hard to do in Git, as currently conceived > > It is not a stretch to call this a cop out. I would seriously question the > legitimacy of a model > which cannot do this very simple and useful thing.
I might be misunderstanding things - but I think git branches are nothing but tags. This feature enables the current git workflows. On the other hand - mercurial branches are more substantial branches - [so perhaps use branch names as distinct items and enforce such rules?] but then one cannot use git workflows here? BTW: Why are there new branches off next? Satish
