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

[Mirian Crzig Lennox]

address@hidden (Tom Lord) writes:
>     > From: Mirian Crzig Lennox <address@hidden>
>
>     > Well, here's the thing: I would dearly love to sell my workplace on
>     > the idea of ditching CVS for Arch.  However, that won't happen unless
>     > Arch can support our version naming scheme, which is typically
>     > [productname]-x.y-rel-z (for natural numbers x,y and z).  For example,
>     > they want to be able to tag something as "2.1-alpha-4", "2.1-beta-3",
>     > "2.1-rc5", and so on.  They most definitely are NOT interested in
>     > saying "alpha-2.1.4", "beta-2.1.3", "rc-2.1.5", etc. because those
>     > names have entirely different meanings to them, and to our customers
>     > and beta sites.
>
>     > And for what it's worth, I firmly agree.  Our version naming scheme
>     > isn't uncommon, complicated or irregular; it's perfectly reasonable to
>     > expect Arch to cope.  If it can't, we ought to fix it so it can.
>
> Create a category which holds config files (the kind you use with
> commands like `buildcfg').  You can name the config files after your
> version names.

Not a bad solution.  My only quibble there is that most of the really
useful Arch subcommands ('ancestry', 'star-merge', 'delta', etc.)
don't grok config names, so those operations become cumbersome.  We do
a lot of "cvs rdiff -r<ver1> -r<ver2> foo/bar/baz.c | more" around
here, for example, so developers would be looking for similar ease in
whatever new SCM we went to.

If it could be possible generally to specify a config name in place of
a revision name, that would certainly sweeten the deal.  What do you
think about moving Arch in that direction?

Mirian