[Nix-dev] Re: new possible movement to git (?)

[Shea Levy]

Peter Simons <simons at cryp.to> wrote:

>Hi,
>
> >> Given that branches are mere pointers, I don't see how to find out
> >> what was stdenv-updates before after it has been merged into trunk
> >> and re-created
> >
> > Yeah, it would be nice if git had information in commits about which
> > branch the commit was initially performed on. This seems like a
> > really simple feature, not sure why it doesn't exist.
>
>personally, I don't see why that information is relevant. Branch names
>are a local affair in Git. It's quite possible for two repositories to
>track the same content using completely different branch names. So why
>bother recording the name if it doesn't have any significance outside
>of
>the repository? Other DVCS make a lot of fuss about branch names, like
>monotone, but I don't see any gain in a distributed project. 
>
>The whole notion of having a "stdenv-updates" branch in the first place
>is obsolete in Git. Instead, we would have many small topic branches
>for
>specific features.
>

But stdenv-updates isn't meant as a really big topic branch. It's meant as a place for changes that will require rebuilding the system, so we can minimize the number of times we require that. How does git help with that? 

>
>Also, I'm not quite sure why there should be an extra "stable" branch.
>As far as I am concerned, "master" ought to be stable.
>

Some people desire the ability to expect most packages to build, some to use the latest packages. These desires are often in tension. 

>Take care,
>Peter
>
>_______________________________________________
>nix-dev mailing list
>nix-dev at cs.uu.nl
>https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.