[ On Wednesday, June 21, 2000 at 22:50:26 (-0700), John P Cavanaugh wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: ".trunk" patch refinement
>
> - Delete the whole concept of the -A option from update/checkout
With reference to sticky tags, yes I agree 100%. It does not cost that
much more to check out a new working directory with the correct branch....
However there does need to be some way to remove sticky dates and sticky
flags (particularly those that are on (an) individual file(s)) , and
also if sticky revisions on a per file basis are still allowed there
needs to be some way to clear them.
> - Name the main trunk "main" or "trunk" and just deal with the
> consequences of people that already have that branch name
That would be OK, but again I still think "1" is sufficient.... ;-)
> - Delete the whole concept of HEAD, instead generalize it to something
> really useful and scaleable like
> <branchname>.latest - For the latest version on a branch
> <branchname>.base - For the version where the branch sprouted
> (ie. the base from the parent branch)
Agree 101%! ;-)
(There could be a bit of a chicken&egg problem to solve for ".base"
though -- I think you actually have to create it if you want it because
of the late branching optimisation, which is something you cannot avoid
if you want to maintain repo compatability.)
> - Allow importing directly to the main branch, get rid of the
> import branch.
I don't like the latter half of this point though. The magic vendor
branch is still a major time saver vs. the effort one would have to go
through to maintain local changes on a "normal" branch if the trunk is
the vendor's branch (i.e. re-branching as well as re-merging after every
import). It would also be more error prone to have the vendor branch on
the default branch -- people would be very likely to check it out and
work on it by accident.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
