Steven Grimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Is there any significant performance penalty to having zillions of
> tags in the system?
I don't know. I'd guess not.
> I think most people's objections to the hashcodes would be be
> satisfied with a hook script that auto-tags revisions with a much
> shorter, likely-but-not-guaranteed unique, value at commit time
> (username + timestamp, DB name + autoincremented serial number,
> etc.)
What's "DB name"? How about using username + timestamp, branch name,
and a few digits of the hash? All of that is (conveniently) part of
the selector syntax, so for input you can do that right away. I
attach a little script that can produce a selector from a hash
(obviously it can be configured to taste).
> I know if I had that, I'd probably never refer to a hex revision
> ID. What happens when there's a name collision between tags during a
> synchronize, anyway?
IIRC, you get the same tag on two (or more) revisions. Tags don't
(necessarily) mark a unique revision.
#!/bin/sh
monotone list certs $1 |
awk '/^Name : .*$/ {sub(/^Name : /, ""); kind=$0}
/^Value : .*$/ {sub(/^Value : /, ""); cert[kind]=$0}
END {sub(/@.*$/,"",cert["author"]);
printf("%s/%s/%s\n", cert["branch"], cert["author"], cert["date"])}'
_______________________________________________
Monotone-devel mailing list
Monotone-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
