Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: baz, --full option, revision lists: What's the best behavior?

[Tom Lord]

  > As a policy *tool* I'm very much in favour of a namespace that knows
  > about people and projects and branches and ... whatnot. However the
  > management of revision identity and the namespace should not be coupled

They should be coupled differently, is all.

A good convention for naming commits seems to be:

        <user-name>/<checksum>

where the `<user-name>' is nearly anything a client cares to pick and
`<checksum>' is a contents-summary of the resulting revision.  This 
both generalizes the requirements on and simplifies the implementation
of the revision-builder part of the system.

Arch 1.x is bogus by too narrowly constraining `<user-name>' and
omitting `<checksum>' altogether -- but that's easily remedied.

Of course, by one mechanism or another, clients must be able to
compute a list of the names of the ancestors of a given commit from
the commit itself.  This returns to the familiar question of whether
and how to support some sort of archive-side ancestry-list caching.


-t