Bruce Stephens wrote: > Thomas Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > > >>Actually. you and Nathaniel are right: the certificates I would like >>to use make a statement about a specific revision of a file. As >>there is no notion of a revision of a file (only revision of a >>tree), it does not seem right to me to use the existing certificates >>for my purpose -- although technically possible. > > > Yes, you just get revisions of a tree, and blobs of data, and each > revision has a manifest, and each manifest maps a filename to a blob > of data. > > So that doesn't really let you talk about a version of a file without > giving a revision of a tree as well. > > But I'd have though that's OK: almost all of the cases I can think of > for commenting on a file would be in the context of the rest of the > tree anyway. For example, that README has been checked, and is > suitable for the release. For that kind of case, I can imagine you'd > want some shortcuts, so you could fix INSTALL, but keep README as > being approved, but you could have scripts and things to do that.
It is a semantical thing to me. I understand that certificates in monotone today make a statement about a certain state (=revision) of the whole tree. Monotone does not have a notion of a statement about a subset of a tree. (Note: this is not a critic towards monotone, just a fact.) OF course, one can add to the statement, that actually the statement only concerns a subset of the tree (ie a file or set of files) and not the whole tree. While technical possible, I consider it a hack, because monotone itself or related tools will never understand and support this statements. Hence, no point in using certs for this purpose (for me). Thanks - tom _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
