|
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".
Aaron
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |