[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Monotone-devel] branch globs
From: |
Paul Crowley |
Subject: |
Re: [Monotone-devel] branch globs |
Date: |
Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:36:59 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Icedove 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061220) |
(whoops, sent this only to Lapo first time around)
Lapo Luchini wrote:
OK. I'm probably paranoid.
But I always end up sync'ing to:
{net.venge.monotone,net.venge.monotone.*}
mainly to avoid the hypotetical and currently non-existing
net.venge.monotone-sucks branch, which is of course included
by the "usually suggested" net.venge.monotone* (w/o a dot).
Should we need an operator that means either nothing or ".something"?
Interesting. I encountered the same problem drafting my policy branch
proposal - you may want to have policy about net.venge.monotone and all
its sub-branches, but you don't want to include net.venge.monotone-viz.
I didn't want to have the branch stuff understand the dots; as things
stand Monotone is currently completely agnostic about the format of
branch identifiers and the dots are just there for human consumption. To
change that would mean taking sides in this discussion:
http://venge.net/mtn-wiki/BranchNamingConventions
and I didn't want to do that yet.
I solved it in the proposal by explicitly listing net.venge.monotone and
net.venge.monotone.* as targets of the delegation; that's one reason my
proposal supports naming explicit branches as well as prefixes.
These two solutions dovetail nicely if you introduce a way of saying
"sync all the branches in this policy".
--
__
\/ o\ Paul Crowley, address@hidden
/\__/ http://www.ciphergoth.org/