Re: [Monotone-devel] branch globs

[Paul Crowley]

(whoops, sent this only to Lapo first time around)

Lapo Luchini wrote:
> OK. I'm probably paranoid.
> But I always end up sync'ing to:
> {net.venge.monotone,net.venge.monotone.*}
> mainly to avoid the hypotetical and currently non-existing
> net.venge.monotone-sucks branch, which is of course included
> by the "usually suggested" net.venge.monotone* (w/o a dot).
> Should we need an operator that means either nothing or ".something"?

Interesting.  I encountered the same problem drafting my policy branch 
proposal - you may want to have policy about net.venge.monotone and all 
its sub-branches, but you don't want to include net.venge.monotone-viz.

I didn't want to have the branch stuff understand the dots; as things 
stand Monotone is currently completely agnostic about the format  of 
branch identifiers and the dots are just there for human consumption. To 
change that would mean taking sides in this discussion:

http://venge.net/mtn-wiki/BranchNamingConventions

and I didn't want to do that yet.

I solved it in the proposal by explicitly listing net.venge.monotone and 
net.venge.monotone.* as targets of the delegation; that's one reason my 
proposal supports naming explicit branches as well as prefixes.

These two solutions dovetail nicely if you introduce a way of saying 
"sync all the branches in this policy".
--
  __
\/ o\ Paul Crowley, address@hidden
/\__/ http://www.ciphergoth.org/