monotone-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

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


From: Pavel Cahyna
Subject: [Monotone-devel] Re: Re: Future of monotone
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:20:42 +0100
User-agent: mutt-ng/devel-r529 (NetBSD)

On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 08:51:18PM +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thomas Moschny wrote:
> >Maybe. I wrote it that way for brevity. As some certs may have more logical 
> >value fields then others, but should all be put in the same SQL table, you 
> >would have to stuff some valued into the same field (from the tables pov), 
> >no?
> 
> Yes, all the information which can be different from cert to cert. That is: 
> 'tag', 'branch', the test result information.
> 
> But IMO not: 'signer', 'author', 'date', and 'comment'
> 
> >There's something missing. Where would you put the 'comment', 'branch', 
> >'tag' 
> >and 'value' data from the table above? 
> 
> Oops, yeah, I forgot about the comment field. Let's try it again:
> 
> 
> CREATE TABLE new_revision_certs
> (
>     hash not null unique, -- consistency checking hash
>     rev_id not null,      -- joins with revisions.id
>     name not null,        -- name of the cert
>     date not null,        -- timestamp of the cert
>     comment,              -- optional comment on the cert
>     value not null,       -- the tag name or test result value
>     author not null,
>     signer not null,
>     signature not null
> );
> 
> With that table, we would have a reduction to the following certs:
> 
>  - 'commit(-message)' certificate  (where changelog -> comment and
>                                     branchname -> value)
>  - 'tag' certificate               (tagname -> value)
>  - 'test-result' certificate.      (test result -> value)
> 
> 
> Every cert, even "private" ones, would then be required to also have a date 
> and 
> an author. Optionally also a comment.
> 
> In a way, this certainly complicates matters. And I'm not quite convinced, 
> that 
> the above scheme is better than what we have now. However, I certainly agree 
> that we should maintain the connection between the current 'author', 
> 'branch', 
> 'changelog' and 'date' certs, which are mostly created in one atomic step.

I thought that monotone philosophy is different and branch certs are
independent of commits and mean review/approval - "mtn approve".

Pavel




reply via email to

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