Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular

[James Blackwell]

> First of all, I am happy to see that some people actually agree with me
> that version-0 and versionfix-N revisions are still useful to something.
>
> It seems that these states are mutually exclusive, though I am not too
> sure about "released nand cycled". If we can agree that these states are
> exclusive it is possible to design a simple set of rules to sort them
> out:
>
>   0. last rev is base-0 or patch-N -> version is open
>   1. last rev is versionfix-N -> version is released
>   2. last rev is version-0
>     2.a: version-0 patchlog has "Seal: closed"
>          -> version is closed and hidden by default
>     2.b: version-0 patchlog has "Seal: cycled address@hidden"
>          -> version is cycled to the named archive
>     2.c: version-0 patchlog has not "Seal" header or "Seal: release"
>          -> version is released
>
> The "Seal:" header provides hints for tools. For abrowse to show or not,
> for merge tools to display a warning when merging with a cycled branch,
> etc.

Two questions:

1. Would you plan to include this Seal line in every versionfix
patchlog?

2. If only version-0 has a Seal: line in the patchlog, but we were at
version-6, would that mean we'd have to get all of the patchlogs and
then go back 6 patchlogs to look to see if Seal: is there?

3. How much of an impact do you think this would have on the running
time of rbrowse?


-- 
James Blackwell      Using I.T. to bring more             570-407-0488
Owner, Inframix      business to your business     http://inframix.com

GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400