2017-07-10 11:22 GMT+02:00 Alistair Grant <[email protected]>: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:15:27AM +0200, Nicolai Hess wrote: > > > > 2017-07-10 10:31 GMT+02:00 Pavel Krivanek <[email protected]>: > > > > However the real question is if we need them in the form we had them > until > > now because they are flattened as soon as a new changes file > (release) is > > created and it stores only information about the last person who > touched > > the method, not about the author nor wider history. > > > > For me, YES! > > > > I always take this data as a hint to track down bugs. Especially in > > this community were different people do bug fixes or introduce > > something new /change something, it is really helpfull and valueable > > to track this changes by the method history. (not only *who* did the > > change, but also, in what context, what else had changed. And I think > > it is much easier to do this from within the image instead of looking > > at the git diff). > > Are the two really mutually exclusive? Given the move to Iceberg > wouldn't it make sense to extend Iceberg to be able to analyse the git > history from within the image? >
No, they are not mutually exclusive, it is just that you can not see the history now. Maybe iceberg will solve this, but for now you can not see the history (and as a windows user, I can not even use iceberg). > > > > That hte history is already lost when we created a new changes/sources > > for release is something that always disturbed me. And I hoped there > > would be some way to reload the "real" history with all intermediate > > changes. > > Cheers, > Alistair > > >
