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

[James Blackwell]

Tom Lord:
>     > > The ':' character should be permitted in branch names but
>     > > have a slightly special meaning.

address@hidden (James Blackwell):
>     > What happens to branchless versions, e.g. smallproject--1.0 ? 
>     > Does that get turned into smallproject--:subbranch--1.3 ? 
>

Tom Lord:
> I don't see why not.

I (and probably a couple other people) were hoping you'd say 'Doh! We
should get rid of branchless packages'

I can't quite put my finger on why, but I get the same feeling with
branchless packages that I get with eating not quite well done
hamburger.  In fact..... I'm wondering if rbrowse even knows to do the
right thing when it comes to branchless packages:

for (x = 0; x < rel_n_records (categories); ++x)
  {
  ...
  for (y = 0; y < rel_n_records (branches); ++y)
    {
    ...
    for (z = 0; z < rel_n_records (versions); ++z)
      {
        ...
      
Offhand, should this code work with branchless packages?


-- 
James Blackwell          Try something fun: For the next 24 hours, give
Smile more!              each person you meet a compliment!

GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400