[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone

From: Markus Schiltknecht
Subject: Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:51:31 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird (X11/20080109)


Thomas Moschny wrote:
Because currently, the 'date' field is only loosely coupled to the 'author', 'branch' and 'changelog' certs. If there are multiple commits (e.g. in case of a clean merge), you can only guess by looking at the signers what certs belong together.

Hm.. yeah, I was just thinking about that date in general. In everyday live, certs normally have a date. A signing date. So, if we want to resemble the commonly understood

Maybe one also wants to have a message' field, but I'm not sure what the
use case would be, and we surely don't want to continue that ad infinitum
(msg for the msg for the msg...).
I'd vote against such a message field, exactly for the "ad infinitum"

It might be worth adding a short note to a tag, for example, but I am not strongly after this message field.

Okay, this applies to 'branch' and 'tag'. Possibly also 'test-result', maybe even for 'suspend', but certainly not for 'commit-message' - which is by far the most frequent one...

Isn't it cleaner adding a 'comment' cert where needed. (And make sure that ends up close to the other cert... locality.)

This would leave us with currently four pre-defined cert types: 'commit'
resp. 'commit-message', 'branch', 'tag' and 'suspend'.
Hm.. having the date information merged into these certs would lead to
duplicates for normal commits.

That could be avoided by additionally combining 'changelog' and 'branch' certs into one cert.

Uh... right.

So in your world, there still are:

  - 'commit' (branchname => value,  changelog => comment)
  - 'tag'    (possibly with a comment)
  - 'test-result'  (possibly with a comment)

Right? Hm... so every cert would have a value, a date, a signer and possibly a comment.

That's imho a different topic, and I'm not sure I already understood what you mean by 'locality' here.

Well, what's your reason to want to merge these certs and their values together? I thought the primary reason was locality (i.e. having those values together, which belong together).



reply via email to

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