On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:47:36AM +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
Incorrect. disapprove does what you describe it should do, as
follows, except for the merge that you have to do separately:
Oh. Er. Um. Well... oops!
I blame a flaky memory, and perhaps the fact that the only time
On 2/11/06, Nathaniel Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 05:25:36PM +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
I'm taking a look at the current revision approval possibilities, and
there are things I don't quite understand. Also, it looks like this
hasn't been looked
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:37:01AM -0800, Justin Patrin wrote:
Personally, I think the functionality of 'disapprove' should move to
'revert' ('revert -r REV [RESTRICTION]; commit'), and 'approve' could
just go away, or stay on until we have a real story, or whatever.
The name 'revert' of
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:41:14 +1100, Daniel
Carosone [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
dan On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:37:01AM -0800, Justin Patrin wrote:
dan Personally, I think the functionality of 'disapprove' should
dan move to 'revert' ('revert -r REV [RESTRICTION];
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 19:26 +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
I've been rethinking. Ignore that, changing the approve command will
not really make things better, because then we need to check that the
value of an approved cert matches any available branch cert or the
current branch,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:15:13 -0600, Timothy
Brownawell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
tbrownaw On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 19:26 +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker
wrote:
tbrownaw What would be needed is perhaps have approve avoid adding
tbrownaw a branch cert for a branch
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 22:39 +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:15:13 -0600, Timothy
Brownawell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
tbrownaw On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 19:26 +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker
wrote:
tbrownaw What would be
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:39:02PM +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
Yeah, the only problem, as far as I see it, is that approve takes
--branch, so for example, I could very easily say something like:
monotone approve --branch=net.venge.monotone.approved.linux \
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I did a little bit of experiment, and found out that I had
misunderstood what the heads of a branch with a disconnected graph
would be. That was basically my worry with this scheme.
My mantra for the night: experiment a little
