On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:57:34AM -0500, Hugo Cornelis wrote: > On 9/11/07, Nathaniel Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I propose that "set of revisions" ~ "branch"? It would definitely be > > nice to have more branch metadata. > > > > Yes, there is a relationship between them, I am not sure what you mean > with ~ (what is the difference between '~' and '=' ?).
~ is like =, just more vague :-). > Just some ideas: > > Consider (user-visible) features F and G, implemented both in branch > A. Each feature can easily constituted of multiple changesets, but I > assume for a moment that no single changeset is related to both F and > G at the same time. In this case I would like to see exactly two > entries in my second level log file (and there is an entry in the > first level monotone log for each changeset). So perhaps it would be better to... implement F and G in branches F and G? That at least reduces the proliferation of mechanisms and UI for them. If you mean, rather, that F and G are two general pieces of functionality, and over a long period of time you want to consistently mark all the changes that happen to touch on that functionality, then I guess branches aren't as ideal. At the monotone level, I guess a UI for that would be something like: -- Commit message editor -- Increase flow through the frobulator to reduce blockage. Keywords: frob, nozzle -- End commit message editr -- ? -- Nathaniel -- Damn the Solar System. Bad light; planets too distant; pestered with comets; feeble contrivance; could make a better one myself. -- Lord Jeffrey _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
