discalimer: this may not be of any particular interest to anyone! it may also be
incorrect and does not necessarily represent how monotone does or will version
things. it's pretty basic and may be old news.
I simply jotted down these notes the other day while thinking about things like
explicit di
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 07:23:46PM +0200, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> An option is to use disapprove on B. This creates a new revision
> (direkt child of B) containing the "anti-patch" of B, and you can
> continue from there:
>
> A
> |
> B
> |
> Bd
> |
> C
>
> And if you
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 6 Jun 2005 01:49:38 +0200, Wim Oudshoorn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
woudshoo> Desired situation:
woudshoo>
woudshoo>A [project.wim]
woudshoo>| \_ B [project.wim.experiment]
woudshoo>C [project.wim]
wo
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 05 Jun 2005 17:53:07 -0400, Michael
Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
mstone> I'm attempting to give people a clean way to mark a revision
mstone> as "no-longer-a-head-for-branch-X". There are two use cases
mstone> for a feature like this one:
mstone>
mstone
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In discussions on IRC, we decided to try to implement at least the
> first case with a new certificate type, tentatively named a
> "prune-branch" certificate by dscherger.
Oh one minor note, because the certificate says "do not consider
this revision a
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm attempting to give people a clean way to mark a revision as
> "no-longer-a-head-for-branch-X". There are two use cases for a feature
> like this one:
>
> 1) To ignore old branches which have subsequently been merged into the
> mainline.
> 2) To mar
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 07:23:46PM +0200, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 04 Jun 2005 22:08:56 +0200, Willem Rein
> Oudshoorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> woudshoo> Use case I - Discard work
> woudshoo> .
> woudshoo>
> woudshoo> I
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 17:53 -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> I'm attempting to give people a clean way to mark a revision as
> "no-longer-a-head-for-branch-X". There are two use cases for a feature
> like this one:
>
> 1) To ignore old branches which have subsequently been merged into the
> mainline
I'm attempting to give people a clean way to mark a revision as
"no-longer-a-head-for-branch-X". There are two use cases for a feature
like this one:
1) To ignore old branches which have subsequently been merged into the
mainline.
2) To mark revisions as unsuitable for merging.
However, it is un
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 04 Jun 2005 22:08:56 +0200, Willem Rein
Oudshoorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
woudshoo> Now we plan using certificates heavily, for example:
woudshoo>
woudshoo> Version: 1.2.0.3
woudshoo> Build:machine xxx: passed|failed
woudshoo> Build arguments: special co
Mark Hagger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been looking quite hard at various SCM's with a view to switching
> from CVS. CVS is slowly, but surely, becoming less and less fitting for
> our needs.
> [...] how stable/reliable is monotone?
You didn't write what these needs are exactly. I've fou
11 matches
Mail list logo
