Re: [Gnu-arch-users] distinguished branch name, "clone"

[Colin Walters]

On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 19:21, Miles Bader wrote:

> I think this could adversely affect the way people think about arch branches
> -- if there's a `distinguished' branch, people will think that it's somehow
> special, and will be less given to moving away from CVS-style development
> patterns (the barrier would only be psychological, of course, but such things
> have a real effect).

Wait a second; there's a lot of stuff included in "CVS-style development
patterns".  Having a distinguished branch is a small subset of that, and
I think it's a good one.

> It would be less objectionable if it were (1) optional, 

You can always fully type out the branches if you like.

> and (2) specified
> per category.  

That would kind of invalidate the consistency among projects...

> I'll further note that which branch is the default, when used for saving
> typing or whatever, often differs for different users, so in fact, maybe this
> is the sort of thing that would be better relegated to a user initfile
> somewhere (perhaps using an archive default as a backup).

This doesn't make sense; the default branch is associated with the
project, not with the user.

> Personally what I've taken to doing is creating little one-line shell
> scripts in my project trees that capture common actions, e.g., in my tla dir
> I might have an executable file called `+merge' that contains:
> 
>   tla star-merge address@hidden/tla-...

I think that's an excellent indication of a usability problem.

By the way, with my star-merge patch should fix at least this example,
presuming your archive is tagged from Tom's.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part