[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone
From: |
Thomas Moschny |
Subject: |
Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone |
Date: |
Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:30:08 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20071204.744707) |
Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> Thomas Moschny wrote:
> > Every cert should probably carry an 'author' and a 'date' field. Note
> > that author and signer can be different.
>
> Uh.. why would you want to merge in a date field?
Because currently, the 'date' field is only loosely coupled to
the 'author', 'branch' and 'changelog' certs. If there are multiple commits
(e.g. in case of a clean merge), you can only guess by looking at the signers
what certs belong together.
> > Maybe one also wants to have a message' field, but I'm not sure what the
> > use case would be, and we surely don't want to continue that ad infinitum
> > (msg for the msg for the msg...).
>
> I'd vote against such a message field, exactly for the "ad infinitum"
> reason.
It might be worth adding a short note to a tag, for example, but I am not
strongly after this message field.
> > This would leave us with currently four pre-defined cert types: 'commit'
> > resp. 'commit-message', 'branch', 'tag' and 'suspend'.
>
> Hm.. having the date information merged into these certs would lead to
> duplicates for normal commits.
That could be avoided by additionally combining 'changelog' and 'branch' certs
into one cert.
> Instead of trying to merge those certs together, I'd rather try to
> increase locality of those certs in the database as well as during
> netsync. That way, all certs would benefit, instead of only those which
> might possibly be used together.
That's imho a different topic, and I'm not sure I already understood what you
mean by 'locality' here.
- Thomas
--
Thomas Moschny <address@hidden>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [Monotone-devel] Future of monotone, Brian May, 2008/01/28
[Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Graydon Hoare, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Thomas Moschny, 2008/01/28
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Bruce Stephens, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Thomas Moschny, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Markus Schiltknecht, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone,
Thomas Moschny <=
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Bruce Stephens, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Thomas Moschny, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Markus Schiltknecht, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Thomas Moschny, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Markus Schiltknecht, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Thomas Moschny, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Markus Schiltknecht, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Thomas Moschny, 2008/01/28
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Re: Future of monotone, Pavel Cahyna, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Thomas Keller, 2008/01/28