[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Tom Lord
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] feature plan -- downstream branches
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 15:06:09 -0700 (PDT)

    > 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

    >  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.


reply via email to

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