[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: Aaron Bentley
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] feature plan -- downstream branches
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 18:39:30 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040306)

Tom Lord wrote:

It shouldn't be necessary to consult archives (e.g., read log files) just to prune out downstream branches from an archive listing.

But, in my view, it shouldn't be necessary to name a branch in a certain way in order to hide it, and it should be possible to hide and unhide branches. I'd like [ar]browse to consult the log file for the latest revision anyway, since it may contain such interesting stuff as "branch-status: inactive" or "branch-description: input validation fixes" or "successor-version: address@hidden/tla--devo--1.4"

I'd rather see a separate file for per-version metadata, but if it's going in the patchlogs, I think browse commands should read the latest patchlog to see what's in there.

You said, "The latest patch-log entry for the tree-version of the project tree may contain a header"..."Variables without an explicitly set value have the value false". So I'm assuming that when the patchlog gets cooked, it gets copies of all unchanged variables from the previous revision. Is that a misinterpretation?

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.

Sure, but it makes naming confusing, and I thought it would be a way to avoid the issue of "what character do we use".


reply via email to

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