clattner at apple.com
Fri Jul 22 14:21:21 PDT 2011
On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Andrew Trick wrote:
>> Of course, if you've used SVN extensively, you've been trained to think
>> that history has to be somewhat linear, and perhaps even that the trunk
>> branch is the only one needing QA attention. Migration from SVN to Git
>> is hard because you have to change the mental model, not just command
>> names and how revisions are named.
> You've mistaken me for someone who doesn't understand why DVCS is important. Please stop using this list to evangelize git.
> My point is that we have QA and release engineering processes that work on each branch independently and work best with chronological build #s *per branch*.
> I would like to think that git generation numbers are sufficient for this so we don't need to resort to timestamps or tags. Mercurial has local revision numbers for this purpose, which I thought were quite handy. Comments on that point are welcome.
I completely agree. The "branch" I most care about is mainline, and losing the ability to say "fixed in r1234" (with some sort of monotonically increasing number) would be a tragic loss.
More information about the llvm-dev