[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Re: Re: How will policy branches work?

From: Markus Schiltknecht
Subject: Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Re: Re: How will policy branches work?
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:16:21 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird (X11/20080110)


Zack Weinberg wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Boris <address@hidden> wrote:
 The problem is the co-worker shouldn't be allowed to check out the files
 at all.

That's what I'm referring to with the "partial checkout" thing. It's currently not possible with monotone. And it would certainly require changes to netsync, if you want to prevent the files from going over the wire. It's a different kind of partial pull: not restricted to parts of all revisions, but restricted to some files within the revisions.

That's not very likely to get implemented anytime soon in monotone. If at all.

Instead, better create completely different branches for these modules. Possibly with propagating from the lesser critical branch to the the activation components branch, but certainly not the other way around.

What is the rationale for this requirement?  My knee-jerk reaction is
that this is ultimately impossible to enforce (untrusted dev A can go
over to trusted dev B and ask to be shown), counterproductive (people
code better when they know what the code on the other side of the
fence is like), and not something we *ought* to support.  But maybe I
would think differently if I knew the situation you're in.

While I agree, I don't think this is convincing managers. After all, there are reasons for proprietary software to still exist. And I'd rather like monotone to be appealing to business as well.

Now, not filling up disk space *by default* with code that dev A has
no intention of looking at is a different story, and as I said
upthread, we can already do that (netsync branch patterns).



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]