[Monotone-devel] Re: [PATCH] mtn commit without -b and mtn branch

[Steven E. Harris]

Nathaniel Smith <address@hidden> writes:

> But once 'mtn branch' becomes the usual way to switch branches... what
> point is there in making 'commit -b foo' a shortcut for 'branch foo;
> commit'?  It's a tiny shortcut for a rare action.

Actually, I always assumed that because it was such a rare action, it
didn't warrant its own command.

> BTW, 'branch' also helps make the mental model of the "workspace"
> more consistent.  A workspace is the place you set up all the
> properties of a revision-to-be; most obviously this includes the
> contents of the files in that revision, but a revision's branch is
> just as interesting a property as its manifest, and it makes perfect
> sense to set up both (and potentially other things), check that 'mtn
> status' looks like what you want, and then hit 'commit' to set it in
> stone.

I like your characterization of the workspace, but see one point worth
pushing. Would "mtn status" announce this pending branch as "the
current branch", or "the pending branch"? It's an important
distinction that I fear the "branch" command -- sounding like a verb
-- may miss. The only operation that /creates/ a branch is "commit".

In other systems, the word "branch" is often meaningful as a distinct
verb, as "branching" or "to branch" literally means telling the system
to create a new branch, usually with no effect on a current workspace
or any pending commit operation.

What I'm hearing as ideas for the "branch" command sound like they
deserve a much more unwieldy name, such as "set_pending_branch" -- at
least in the case of branches that do not yet exist.

-- 
Steven E. Harris