Nathaniel Smith wrote:
people who haven't yet internalized
monotone's model of branches are dazed and confused at the idea of a
revision that is in no branch, and we should try to not confuse such
people when we can avoid it. There's a tension, in general, where a
system should simultaneously work more-or-less-okay for people who
don't really understand it at all and are applying some unknown vague
model they got from somewhere else, and at the same time, should have
a simple, clear and consistent model for people who _do_ take the time
to figure it out...
What would be the "clear and consistent model" this time? I also like
clear and consistent models but I think this time it is not as clear...
IMHO clear and consistent model could be if each branch had exactly one
branch point (one revision in each branch would be the *first* revision)
and all revisions in the said branch would be descendants of this
revision (thus the branches would not have holes).
I guess this is close to the model described by Wim later in this thread
for propagate behavior...(adding the D revision on the main branch)?
The only model I see now in branches is that "branch is a set of
revisions sharing a branch certificate". I miss the single origin and
the continuity :(
Zbynek
--
http://zw.matfyz.cz/ http://robotika.cz/
Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
_______________________________________________
Monotone-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
