Merge on push?

[Douglas Philips]

On 2008 Jun 9, at 11:15 PM, Greg Lindahl wrote:
> Why on earth would you vote on someone else's policy?

Because I wasn't?

I wasn't talking about policy, I was talking about the fundamental  
difference in philosophy between CVS and Mercurial (and most other  
DVCs).

In CVS there is absolutely no notion of a changeset. Any such notion  
is a social convention or policy artifact of commits with common/ 
exactly-the-same commit strings, and/or post-facto tags and/or some  
external-to-CVS mechanism.

Mercurial has no way of talking about files with versions - 
independent- of changesets in the way that CVS does. Mercurial has no  
way to do non-atomic commits the way CVS does. etc. etc. etc.

Those are core, fundamental, differences of technology and philosophy  
behind the original question and my reply. The surface of my reply had  
to do with how the CVS philosophy can easily lead one to think in  
certain ways and how easily those ways can cause problems.

If CVS is the workflow people want, then moving to Mercurial or git or  
darcs or bzr or ... will just cause them unhappiness... and changing  
those other tools to be more CVS like is just wrong, they are  
deliberately designed to be -not- CVS like.

--Doug