Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] feature plan -- downstream branches

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Aaron Bentley <address@hidden>

    > In fact, is it a programmatic requirement to have it

(it, for context, being the syntax for "downstram-branches" in branch
names)

    >  in the 
    > package-version?  For the described usage, I think it'd work fine to 
    > have it as a version variable.  (e.g. version-variable: upstream-name 
    > "tla--devo--1.3")

    > This has the potential advantage of supporting fully-qualified revision 
    > names.

This is similar to the ancestry vs. namespace ordering of revisions.

The upstream recorded in patch-logs is kind of like ancestry -- it's
the "physical" upstream.

The upstream embedded in the branch name is a "logical" upstream.

It's worth putting a "logical upstream" notion into branches just for
reporting -- just for commands that print out lists of branches.
It shouldn't be necessary to consult archives (e.g., read log files) 
just to prune out downstream branches from an archive listing.

The correlation between physical and logical up/down-stream
relationships is, like ancestry and revision names, voluntary and
deliberate.  That is, you have to explicitly choose to use a logically
downstream name for a physically downstream branch, although the
convenience commands encourage you to do so.


-t