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

[Scott Bronson]

Oops, I missed the word "Cartesian" in Mark's email.  This changes
things entirely.  OK, so Tom's quote isn't so relevant.

I didn't see anything in there about microbranching though.  I'm
not finding the reasoning behind Miles's position blindingly
obvious, though apparently it should be.

    - Scott



On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 15:52, Scott Bronson wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 14:54, Miles Bader wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 06:54:31PM +0000, Mark Thomas wrote:
> > > Reorder `category--branch--version' to `category--version--branch'.  If we
> > > are popularising microbranches they *are* subordinal to versions, unlike
> > > the unrelated cartesian space that Tom has referred to before.
> > 
> > Christ man, _no they're not_.
> > 
> > All this crap (and specifically the above crap) was argued ad-nauseum on 
> > this
> > list a few months ago, and I have no wish to repeat the experience.
> 
> I think that this is the start of the thread that Miles is referring to.
> 
> http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-arch-users/2003-09/msg00513.html
> 
> A very relevant quote by Tom:
> http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-arch-users/2003-09/msg00516.html
> 
> <<<
> It may be helpful not to think of a category as being divided first
> into branches, then into versions, but instead as a category as being
> the name of a two dimensional space:  BRANCH x VERSION
> 
> It's just a convention - one of two possible - that branch labels are
> written to the left of version ids.
> >>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
> 
> GNU arch home page:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
>