On 26/03/2010, Yang Tse <yangsita_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Given a single repo with more than one branch a given file might have
> a different life on each branch. The file could perfectly have a
> revision number which included branch Id for each branch without much
> problem. The fun starts when two branches are merged, and how
> conceptually the merging should be considered.
>
> One option would be to consider there exists a donor branch and a
> recipient branch. In this case the merged file would continue with
> recipient branch Id and next revision number for that branch.
[..]

There's a good chapter about Git branches in
http://ftp.newartisans.com/pub/git.from.bottom.up.pdf
It's a good read. Branches don't work in Git the way it works in more
"traditional" (read: Old) version control systems. It's much more
elegant and beatiful than that, and very easy to work with. You could
say that you won't be able to have the branch IDs as you describe, the
other side of the coin is that, when you get used to Git branches, you
won't see any need for it..

-Tor
-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library
Etiquette: http://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html
Received on 2010-03-26