On 4/29/2011 10:18, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/29/2011 9:55, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> yet Git assumes that it does.
>
> Yep. It's a question of whether you're being conservative or not, is all.

Or, to be fair, more appropriately, git doesn't imply that just because 
change A followed change B that change B depends on change A. Reading 
dependencies into the order of commits is reading in something that isn't there.

Git is storing a series of snapshots. Each commit contains a complete record 
of everything that was in your working directory when you committed it 
(sorta, using Darcs terms). Each commit points to the version that was in 
your working directory that you changed in order to get the new version. As 
I said, git doesn't store changes. It says "he started with X, then he had 
with Y," with no real implication that Y somehow depends on X.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message