commit: Fix specifier inheritance behavior

[Didier Verna]

Michael Sperber <sperber at deinprogramm.de> wrote:

> Didier Verna <didier at xemacs.org> writes:
>
>>   That's exactly why I recommend in Patcher's doc to avoid that
>> situation. I'm actually wondering if it's a good thing at all to
>> perform such commits to the main repo. My current policy is to ensure
>> that my copy of the repository is up to date, and then patch and
>> commit right away so as to avoid the need for merging.
>
> You can also do this after the fact with Mercurial Queues.

  My knowledge of Mercurial doesn't go that far, but I'll look into it.  


>> Doing things the way you describe feels wrong to me because you're
>> typically introducing information that is local to *you* into the
>> main repo: nobody else is interested in the fact that you committed
>> in an out-of-date copy of the main repo, and "fixed" this later on by
>> merging.
>
> Opinions differ on that:
>
> http://changelog.complete.org/posts/586-Rebase-Considered-Harmful.html

Thanks for the pointer. It's actually a good answer for a post of mine
to which nobody replied anything (<muxabmgabo2.fsf at uzeb.lrde.epita.fr>) :-)

But I'm still not quite convinced. Although option 2 is obviously more
convenient (for instance if you've done a lot of work unplugged), it
still feels wrong to me...

-- 
5th European Lisp Workshop at ECOOP 2008, July 7: http://elw.bknr.net/2008/

Didier Verna, didier at lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier

EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire   Tel.+33 (0)1 44 08 01 85
94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France   Fax.+33 (0)1 53 14 59 22  didier at xemacs.org