Re: [Gnu-arch-users] archzoom wishlist item

[Johannes Berg]

On Sa, 2004-08-21 at 19:15 -0400, Miles Bader wrote:
> Still, I think it would obviously confuse people if the order they see
> everyday in their names was not the same as that presented in a browser.

Sure. But for those who actually know what they're doing, tracking
things that essentially have a single version number (like my example)
gets much much easier. I'm still not advocating changing the default.
All arguments so far are against changing the default representation
("confuses people", "not arch mainline", ...).

> Sure it `looks clean', and if all your branches have the same basicaly
> vestigial version number, it makes little difference.  _But_ if the archive
> actually _uses_ version numbers, it will suddenly start to look a lot less
> clean, and different versions of the same category/branch will be separated
> in a most inconvenient manner.  IOW, your example above is sort of a
> straw-man argument.

No, its not a straw-man argument, it is an example where the option (!)
to show things the other way around makes a lot of sense.

> I'd suggest that a much better strategy to avoid unnecessary clutter in the
> output format would be to make sure that `vestigial' versions don't consume
> any unnecessary space.
> [...]

Thats essentially the same as the original, only less space.

Btw, the thing about feature branches is that they're sub-branches, so
that'd be something like

moin       main       1.3
              feat1
              feat2
              feat3

etc.

What I'm saying is that I'd like the tool to be able to show me things
almost like that _iff_ I tell it: hey, these are essentially feature
branches.

johannes