Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Status of global and tree aliases

[Andrew Suffield]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:27:07PM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
> (As a minor point, the names "tree" and "global" are confusing.  By
> "global" I think you really mean "user" and by "tree" I think you
> really mean "version".  One thing missing in your proposal is (what I
> would call) "tree" aliases -- those specific to a particular project
> tree (but just that tree -- not committed along with the tree).

No, these really are tree aliases. Version aliases are something else
that may also be desireable, but I'm damned if I can see how to
implement them sanely (problem: which version do I look in?).

The significant distinction here is that if I get a tree, then replay
a changeset over it, that replay may change the value of a tree alias,
but may not change the value of a version alias.

(You've also described precious tree aliases - I'm not really sure if
those are useful, but they are different again)

>     > Can I do stupid things with aliases?
>     > ------------------------------------
>     > Of course you can! If you alias "address@hidden/tla--devo--1.3"
>     > as "address@hidden/tla--devo--1.3", then when you type tla get
>     > address@hidden/tla--devo--1.3, you'll get Lord's version
>     > instead. 
> 
> That is completely unacceptable and easily fixed.  The introduction of
> aliases should not create syntactactic ambiguities like that.

Personally, I'd rather have a prefix character that denotes "user
alias", or "tree alias", or whatever.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature