On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: > > You are saying: > > > > - This is a sensible policy > > > > - It would improve our workflow > > We made it a year and a half without botching this. If we're merging > branches without checking what we're merging, we've got way bigger > problems. And Git is not going to do code review on its own.
This is truly a low point for your argument. You are not arguing against the usefulness, nor that automation is better than doing it by hand, but that it did not happen for a while and moral use of VC dictates that you do it manually? That is crazy. Matt > > but > > > > - Automating it is too hard, so people should do it by hand > > We're really talking about code review. If you review what you are > merging, then there is no "by hand". The particular policy no-no is > just one of many incorrect merges that one could do. > > > 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. > > Define the thing you want in a precise and generic way. Make a concrete > proposal and we can talk about whether that is better than what we have > now. Throwing away something good so that we can avoid repeating a > mistake is unproductive reactionary policy. I do not think this mistake > is that hard to avoid and I think that preventing it via technical means > is unlikely to be an overall improvement. > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener
