From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:45:59 -0800
From: "Roman V. Shaposhnik" <rvs@sun.com>
In-reply-to: <708075f8f47e3197600a9cbdf1dc3769@quanstro.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-id: <1233247559.4412.122.camel@goose.sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <708075f8f47e3197600a9cbdf1dc3769@quanstro.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Sources Gone?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8e4cc99c-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 08:37 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > and as you well point out, the skils of a schizophrenic monkey for
> > managing local changes.
>
> well then, please show me how hg/git or whatever would save
> me from the situation outlined.  how would hg/git know that
> i was really using some code which i had never locally modified
> and was then removed on sources?

it wouldn't. but the fact that it encourages a three step process:
   1. get the immutable history (whatever it is) but don't modify your
   write buffer
   2. inspect history. Git offers quite a few nice tools to manage your
   local changes in the interim, but it is conceptually similar to
   formatting an extra fossil buffer with a score corresponding to
   the "tip" of the history and simply comparing it to what you have.
   3. only when you are absolutely certain, you combine your local
   changes with whatever history brought you, then you commit and
   get the new score
makes it far less dangerous. With replica (on those two or three
occasions that I used it) it seemed that your only option is
to "hope for the best". It doesn't manage history. It manages
your write buffer.

Thanks,
Roman.