[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal

From: Aaron Bentley
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix]
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 22:19:26 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4

Tom Lord wrote:
Holy Cow!  That's close to an idea that I think could be _really_
sweet.  Are you sure this isn't what you meant?:

Have annotation work on a particular version, possibly on a linear
list of versions.  Make tool like `patch' but that updates an
annotated file (it only has to work for known-to-be-exact patching).

I'm a bit lost about what this tool is for.

Now, derive a new version from the one you want to annotate.   So:

        tla--devo--1.3          =>   Annotated-tla--devo--1.3

with a 1:1 mapping of revisions.

I'm a bit out of my depth here, since I haven't used annotations. Is it okay to require that annotations cannot be changed without committing a new revision to the source tree? (1:1 will introduce that requirement.)

You'd also need some fanciness to get the base-0 revision right.

If all of these revisions are tags, doesn't patch-N have the same problems as base-0?

That'll roughly doubles the archive storage needed and puts more
pressure on revlibs --- but that's _all_ it does.

Hmm. I wasn't suggesting storing any data in the annotation tree (just metadata), so the archive storage should be considerably less than half of the source tree. Maybe I'm not understanding you.


reply via email to

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