[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Repo cpnversion progress report

From: Eric S. Raymond
Subject: Re: Repo cpnversion progress report
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:16:12 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

Karl Fogel <address@hidden>:
> I agree with Eli's point above, FWIW (and not just because he happened
> to use one of my (sadly rarer than I would like) commits as an example).

This could be done with a relatively simple series of changes to the lift file.

(Everybody should be paying attention to the lift script drafts!  This is
my way of exposing the conversion process to review, as well as making
it repeatable so that the cost of correcting errors is low.)

There's a practical problem with it, however. Where a Bazaar revision
number is typically 5 or 6 characters an action stamp is a minimum of
28 and typically about 40.  Fortunately we can often get some of that
back by removing an unneeded "revision" or "revno:" prefix.

Still, replacing with the action stamp already makes the patched
references unpleasantly long in some cases.  Adding the action stamp
*and* leaving the Bazaar revision in place would produce results that
in many cases are significantly harder to read.  This is the main
reason I don't want to do it.  The whole point of what I'm doing
is to *lower* the friction costs of browsing the history, not raise them.

I hear the argument about forensics, but the Bazaar revision numbers
are no more helpful for that than the action stamps. If anything,
spelunking is an argument for appending those numbers to the change
comment of each revision - leaving them in as references would a 
bass-ackwards approach to the problem.

But there's a better way.  We're going to have a complete
revision-to-action-stamp map as part of the record.  It would be
pretty easy to write Emacs code that uses that map to find revisions
by Bazaar reference number.  That's the right solution, IMO.
                <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>

reply via email to

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