>> This, fundamentally, seems to be what it all comes down to. You seem to
>> think that this information is *useful*, whereas to me it's annoying
>> clutter
>> that I'd rather not have to waste time explicitly micro-managing.
>
> You really don't have to micromanage it. The git commands are all pretty
> much isomorphic to the darcs commands. It's extremely useful when you
> merge in a change and something breaks, so you can easily go "Oh, I see
> why, because his change says "outputs index counter" and I changed the
> output function *since* he started work on that."
>
> Without that clue, you have to actually look at the "outputs index
> counter" change and read it to see what version of the output routines
> he's expecting, which can be especially confusing if he *wrote* the
> patch after you changed the output function but before he merged and
> applied your patch.
>
> I'm not all that sure how you can't see how that's helpful. :-)

There really has to be a better way of solving this problem than 
serialising the entire change history forever...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message