Re: Triggers status?
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: Triggers status?"):
> And it would be wise & fine to proceed that way if your history
> was clean and all. I was just showing you that loosing the history
> doesn't involve as much work as you expected to, but of course it's
> more work.
I don't know what you mean by `not as much as you expected'.
The results you demonstrated seemed entirely consistent with what I
expected and it is precisely that kind of merging makework that my
approach avoids.
Doing extra merge work for the benefit of cosmetic redaction of commit
logs (which is IMO itself of doubtful value) seems an absurd tradeoff.
Merging substantial conflicting changes is one of the most demanding
and error-prone programming tasks. I'm astonished that you're
seriously advocating a workflow that prefers to have humans running
around fixing up mistakes made by computers.
However I think that this conversation between you and me isn't going
anywhere useful. We're going round in circles.
Would anyone else like to comment ?
Guillem, do you have an opinion about the use of git or (preferably!)
about the actual code ?
Ian.
Reply to: