[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular
From: |
James Blackwell |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular |
Date: |
Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:57:26 -0500 |
> I've been pondering this for a while now, and I have a suggestion. It's
> quite heretical, but please consider it :)
>
> I think we might need a radical shake-up of the namespace. Ignoring
> incompatibility briefly, I suggest the following:
>
> Like I said, heretical stuff. It's just a suggestion.
>
You're not as heretical as you think. I agree with you, and whats more,
other people that "get" arch to varying levels have had the same
epithany. In practice, versions *are* superior to branches.
It really depends from what context you're looking from, but usually
instead of:
tla--devo--1.2
tla--mainline--1.2
What we really see more often is:
tla--1.2--featurea
tla--1.2--featureb
tla--1.3--featureb
tla--1.3--featurec
tla--1.3--featured
This position is actually supported by Tom's recommendation for porting
branches when he went from 1.1 to 1.2. As a reminder, his advice
(over-summarized here) was that everybody should close their 1.1
branches and open new branches in 1.2, tag off of him, and replay local
changes into the new 1.2 branches. In other words, because versions in
practice are superior to branches, when the version was bumped, we were
logically obligated to make new branches.
That said, it would be very, very painful to change the ordering at this
point. Most of the code would have to be heavily modified and this would
cause (for the first time) incompatible archives to exist. The great
majority of the tla could would need to be changed as well. Saying "this
would mean tla 2.0" feels like an understatement to me.
Even though I agree with you that the branch/version ordering is wrong,
I think its just too painful to fix. :(
--
James Blackwell Using I.T. to bring more 570-407-0488
Owner, Inframix business to your business http://inframix.com
GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D 247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Robert Collins, 2004/01/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, David Allouche, 2004/01/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Mirian Crzig Lennox, 2004/01/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Tom Lord, 2004/01/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Mirian Crzig Lennox, 2004/01/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Mark Thomas, 2004/01/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular,
James Blackwell <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Jeremy Shaw, 2004/01/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Tom Lord, 2004/01/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Benjamin Bytheway, 2004/01/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Miles Bader, 2004/01/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Tom Lord, 2004/01/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Scott Bronson, 2004/01/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Scott Bronson, 2004/01/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Miles Bader, 2004/01/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Miles Bader, 2004/01/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Mark Thomas, 2004/01/28