Robert Haas wrote:
>>> 2. Start using more git...
>> This is a red herring, unless your proposal also includes making the
>> master CVS^H^H^Hgit repository world-writable. The complaint I have
>> about people posting URLs is that there's no stable archive of what the
>> patches really were, and just because it came out of someone's local git
>> repository doesn't help that.
>
> No, git really does help with this. ...
> git IS a stable archive of what the patches really were.
Sorry to re-ignite the flame war, but this is the
*perfect* example of the singlemost compelling advantage git over cvs.
All of Simon's history remains visible in git on his branch.
Better - any patches submitted to Simon by code reviewers that
Simon accepts (pulls) into his branch - can also be seen on
branches off of Simon's branch with the complete history of where
they came from.
When/if the patch eventually gets accepted into the master, as
as much (or as little, thanks to git-rebase) of the history of
that branch can be pulled along with it; as can be seen with the
major merges of linux branches here:
http://repo.or.cz/git-browser/by-commit.html?r=linux-2.6.git
There's no need for the master git to be world-writable. The
few with write access choose exactly how much history from Simon's
branch (and from the code review's branches) they want to merge in
when they pull&merge from his branch.