[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Centralized darcs

On Friday 04 August 2006 14:58, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Matthew Palmer writes ("Re: Centralized darcs"):
> >   diff.gz archaeology should not be necessary.
> I think this is the root of the key difference between the `like patch
> systems' people and the `hate patch systems' people.

In my opinon the root of the key differences is that with patch systems you 
can have it both ways:
a) all chunks in one big diff
b) chunks clearly separated by issue

Obviously the patch system is an addition to the VCS, so one can live without 
the underlaying VCS used in a given case.

> `Hate patch systems' people are those who can read code, and prefer
> programming and debuggint to doing archaelogy.  They're people like
> me: my first approach to any bug I'm trying to fix (or change I'm
> trying to make) is to read and then edit the actual code.  Only if I
> seem to be explicitly going against some other person's decision, or
> the whole thing seems crazy, will I try to find some archaeology or

Seems like you will find clearly separated chunks useful sometimes.

> changelog or something in an effort to find out why it was done the
> crazy way.

`Hate patch systems' can easily apply all chunks and start 
reading/digging/hacking on the top of that, while separated chunks are close 
at hand for any reference.

> `Like patch systems' people are those who would prefer to do
> archaelogy to dealing with the actual code of a program written by
> someone else.  These are people for whom the average level of clue in
> the world as represented by the history of the program and other
> people's patches exceeds their own ability to generate correct changes
> to the code.  The resulting culture is one of `cargo culting' patches
> and `explanations' from one place to another, without really
> understanding them.

`Like patch systems` people can go either way as they find fit, although 
turning back all chunks into a combined fashion is a regression, because you 
can't have it both ways anymore.

Given that I think your definitions wrt `like and hate patch systems people` 
could be easily swapped and still be true, thus making such sort of 
discriminations fairly irrelevant.

pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 

Reply to: