On 2013-11-06, at 13:38, Goubier Thierry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Le 06/11/2013 13:20, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :
>> Now that we have epicea I would really love to have a tool that does not
>> show me stupidly a diff but
>> take into account the actions that have been performed like rename class,
>> split….
>
> Yes! I want that too! How do we try EPICEA? Is it already integrated?
>
>> Side questions: camillo and other giter, I was thinking that it would make
>> sense to publish on git metadata (may be in ston)
>> representing the semantics of the operation that led to the changes) so that
>> tools can take advantage of this information
>> to present semantical operation instead of plain stupid diff. For example
>> split this method, rename class,….
>
> +100
Indeed, some meta data is needed, although I think much of it can be properly
inferred if the commits have sufficient resolution. As a side note, git for
instance does not track renames:
https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Git_FAQ#Why_does_Git_not_.22track.22_renames.3F
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/217
Specially the last link is worth reading ;)
> My approach would be to focus on tools in the Pharo world to explore that, at
> the Monticello GUI level (and merge tools).
>
> In the Git world, I'll focus simply on a file format able to store that
> knowledge, in a way which minimises git-induced conflicts... The goal being
> that a git merge would recreate a working Smalltalk result (no conflicts)
> with a correct EPICEA history (eventually recreated from the git stored data).
>
> What I know is that a single file in whatever format containing the EPICEA
> log will be a conflict magnet.
If you attach the information to the commit itself that will be fine:
https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-notes.html
because, as you say, each time metadata ends up in the sources part of the git
repository we will have merge problems, since you can only properly merge such
data if you fully understand the semantic meaning.
Additionally I think, that the transition data should not go into the sources,
technically they are no sources, but they belong on the commit itself.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
