9 ms·
> patches are associative: pulling B and C together after A does the same as pulling just C after pulling A and B that makes no sense to me. DARCS also claim t
by gcb0 7y ago
> patches are associative: pulling B and C together after A does the same as pulling just C after pulling A and B
that makes no sense to me. DARCS also claim this, but if you have the patches all changing the first line to a different value, obviously the last one will dictate the final value of the first line. Which is the same as git. in what world do you want to change orders of patches and not have the final state change?
- _nalply 7y agoAssociativity is not about changing the order but about a different grouping: ( A B ) C = A ( B C )
- jupp0r 7y agoIf A, B and C are patches, you are applying C last on the left side and A last on the right.
- echo-oddly 7y agoYou are wrong. Yes, on the left side B is applied to A, then C is applied to the result (AB). However, on the right side, C is applied to B, then the result (BC) is applied to A. A is still the left most patch in both cases. BC could depend on (the output context of) A so it wouldn't make sense to apply A to BC! BC is applied to A. A(BC)
- jupp0r 7y agoSo you are saying that applying patches is not commutative? I was assuming A(BC) == (BC)A. What makes you think that the result should be different depending on the order?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]