On Tue, 24 May 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> You are getting precisely the same thing you got under BitKeeper: pull
> from X, you get my tree, which was composed from $N repositories. The
> tree you pull was created by my running 'bk pull' locally $N times.
No. Under BK, you had DIFFERENT TREES.
What does that mean? They had DIFFERENT NAMES.
Which meant that the commit message was MEANINGFUL.
> Ultimately, you appear to be complaining about:
>
> * your own git-pull-script, which doesn't record the $2 (branch)
> argument in the commit message.
Yes, because _my_ pull script is meant to work with the way _I_ have told
people (including you) they should work.
The fact that you mush everything up in one tree _despite_ me having told
you that isn't a good thing to do is the problem.
Git can technically do it, but then you shouldn't use my scripts, which
aren't written for that behaviour.
> Hey, I didn't write git-pull-script, I just use it :)
You don't use it, you MIS-use it. Which is what I'm complaining about.
> Switching heads around? It sounds like you did not pull from the branch
> I mentioned.
No, I pulled exactly from the head you mentioned.
In fact, go look at YOUR OWN changelog. And then compare that changelog to
the changelog you had when you used BK, and realize that IT IS NOT AT ALL
EQUIVALENT. You used to have valid changelogs, even for the merge heads.
You don't any more:
Automatic merge of /spare/repo/netdev-2.6/.git
Automatic merge of /spare/repo/netdev-2.6/.git
Automatic merge of /spare/repo/netdev-2.6/.git
Automatic merge of /spare/repo/netdev-2.6/.git
Merge of /spare/repo/netdev-2.6/.git
See a pattern?
Your BK usage was equivalent to having multiple GIT repositories.
Linus
|