gnu-arch-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular [was: Re-linking t


From: Jean Helou
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular [was: Re-linking to revlib implemented]
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:06:43 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031107 Debian/1.5-3

David Allouche wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 10:28:13PM -0500, James Blackwell wrote:
>
>> One of the things that seems to steer users away from creating
>> microbranches is a fear of cruft. [...]
>>
>> We could solve this (thusly encouraging microbranches even more)
>> by providing a method for users to "hide" no longer active
>> portions of an archive.
>>
>> Execution of this would require two parts:
>>
>> 1. Somewhere, somehow store data about what versions are to be
>> hidden.  [One] of the ways we could do this is to create
>> .arch-params/=hidden-trees. [...]
>
>
> I'd rather think of it as an archive property. One more application
>  for the archive-metadata category.
>
>> 2. Teach [ar]browse how to ignore the cat/archive/version listed
>> in #1. [...]
>>
>> Basically, its a security blanket for the kids until they grow
>> into arch enough to realize they look silly carrying a security
>> blanket around. :)
>
>
> When I first read the larch tutorial (the old, messy tutorial, with
>  much more deep thinking than the current one) I was deeply
> impressed by Tom's point that category--branch--version--revision
> naming scheme was designed as a way for humans to communicate as
> much as a way to actually store data in the archive.
>
> Maybe the paradigm has been shifting over time and I have missed
> it, but I am still very much attached to the idea that an archive
> organization actually _means_ something, and that (still emerging)
> conventional naming schemes make it easier for someone to find its
> way in an unknown archive.
>
> In that paradigm, I believe it would be a good idea to say "this
> category/branch/version only contain historical data, nothing of
> importance is going there anymore, patches have already been
> merged".
>
> This would not be a security blanket, but a convenience to keep
> dead microbranches out of the way when using, for example, GUIs or
> tab completion.
>
>
> My two euro cents.

I am still a newbie with arch so I might miss something  but why not
simply create a new archive when the current one becomes too cluttered
to ones taste ?
Then you only have to tag your active categories as continuation into
the new archive and its cleaned.Eventually cachereving these new
branches so you can even move the old archive on to a backup system.

Since categories can easily cross archives why not use this ? And
before you tell me about the problem of having to tag+cacherev every
live branch by hand, this can be solved by a shell script (etla, itla?
) or a gui pretty easily, cant'it ?

Jean






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]