On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 04:26:01AM +0100 I heard the voice of Richard Levitte, and lo! it spake thus: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 02:00:33 +0100, Rhialto > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > I pulled a new monotone repository and looked at it with > > monotone-viz, and something weird is going on. Maybe it's a > > monotone bug, or it may be with monotone-viz. > > Actually, it's less weird than you might think. I assume that > Matthew did some hacking in a branch of his own, but since that > branch is most probably not among those he's allowed to write to, > the revisions themselves come over, but the branch certs do not. > > So basically, the edge between > e07ab7de496e218dc324fe3a9cb66d85dde116d8 and > a97d0dcc8eaf6e94ce9190d98913789d9dbbd37f represent the move from the > ctwm branch to Matthew's private hackng branch, and the edge between > 6eb1af5f822cafe715c4e46f37ea3bc808e7a5f5 and > 4da54949171b2cc1c5f467318daf87b683a77d9b represent the move back > into the ctwm branch.
Yes, the entire run from a97d0dcc up through 4da549 happened in my private branch. While mtn isn't the way I went for my own stuff, working with a DVCS has well trained me to make throwaway branches for anything that looks likely to take more than 1 commit to do. I'm not sure what viz is showing breakage for, though; eyeballing the ancestry, it's unbroken, and I thought propagate would add on the X.ctwm branch certs. This is the boundaries of my mtn understanding, though. My workflow goes something like: - I have an 'upstream' repo which is what I pulled from guardian, and what I push back via. - I have a 'fullermd' repo into which I pulled just the X.ctwm branch from my 'upstream' repo, and in which I do my work. Then I propagate from my working branch into that X.ctwm, do a 'push' from there (which pushes that X.ctwm back to the 'upstream' repo), then go over to upstream and push it to guardian. The reasoning behind this is that such branches are throwaway; once they've done their job, they should just be tossed in the bitbucket since they don't have any further reason to exist. But once the branch sneaks out of my repo into upstream, it's eternal; I may get into the plumbing and delete it, but it'll reappear next time somebody else re-syncs. This way, the branches don't leak upstream, and when too many of them start showing up I can just rm the repo and re-create it (well, except that it also has the branch that I use for the local changes in my running ctwm... I guess I'll have to make a third repo for that when I get around to dumping this). So I have to go through extra hoops to keep my branches from leaking upstream. mtn docs don't tell me near enough to figure out appropriate ways of setting patterns (they barely tell me that there ARE patterns and how to see them) for syncing; I'm not even sure you CAN specify multiple levels of allow/deny. And anyway, it'd just accumulate unnecessary and distracting clutter over time. Thus, a bunch of contortionism. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.
