> I wonder how your commercial customers develop code then. Either each
> programmer futzes around in his/her own tree, and then creates a patch
> (or some such) for everybody to see (then I don't see the point of
> source control as a help to the individual developer), or everybody
> sees all the backtracking going on everywhere (in which case the
> repository is a mostly useless mess AFAICS).
If the object is to minimise confusion by not showing
back-tracked changes, why not simply allow the user
to mark changesets with a "visibility":
1) hidden, for stuff which shouldn't be seen by default,
like backed out changes, etc..
2) small, individual development steps to achieve a new
feature
3) normal, the normal commits
4) major (tagged versions ?)
This way the user can select how detailed the overview
of the versions should be.
Also, when viewing a changeset/version of a certain
priority, bitkeeper could optionally "fold in" the
hidden changesets between the last changeset and the
one the user wants to view.
Would this be a workable scheme ?
(keeps the bitkeeper repository intact, can reduce
the confusion)
regards,
Rik
--
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
-- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/