[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Monotone-devel] renaming branches (was Re: Ideas and questions.)

From: Christof Petig
Subject: Re: [Monotone-devel] renaming branches (was Re: Ideas and questions.)
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:44:46 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux ppc; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050105 Debian/1.7.5-1

graydon hoare schrieb:
perhaps we should put it to a vote. the reason we're delaying 0.17 at
the moment is that we're working on epochs. this scheme would replace
epochs. so it produces 3 possible futures. which would y'all perfer?

  1. release 0.17 without any epoch support, do a big smelly email
     telling everyone to pull from our rebuilt database just like with
     0.16, perhaps also with a protocol number bump again, and have no
     particularly better way of avoiding the breakage of old and new
     revision graphs colliding. then work on this branch-as-ID stuff
     for 0.18.

Not again. I regularly sync against several different servers and if all
servers and all clients within reach have to update at the same moment
it causes a great pain (read I need severaly monotone binaries on one
machine). I already encountered this twice (with monotone, monotone-viz
and my own projects) and I don't want to go through it again (since the
number of projects grow).

  2. delay 0.17 as long as it takes to rewrite the cert format and
     make branches into random IDs, possibly weeks or months, and
     release that when we're good and ready.

delaying 0.17 is not appealing to me. More and more people are using
monotone and delaying the syntax change (restrictions) and the database
format change (sqlite3) any longer does not feel good to me.

  3. finish working on epochs, release 0.17, and forget about this
     crazy branch-as-ID stuff (possibly because it has some horrible
     flaw I haven't forseen)

4. release with as much epoch support as is absolutely needed and
replace preliminary epoch support by a new scheme [branch-as-ID is a
good idea (how to compute that ID?); distributed renaming certs (see my
post on deleting/changing certs for details) or any other idea we work
out after 0.17].


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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