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

[Mark Thomas]

I was well aware of the previous thread about this subject.  I didn't say
anything then because I didn't have anything to add ;p   It only stopped
because Tom stated that BRANCH x VERSION were independent of each other
and the order doesn't matter, the problems of user confusion and version
mangling are yet to be solved.

I agree that the pain of switching them around is too much though.  It was
just an idea, and I did at least acknowledge that it was heretical.


On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Miles Bader wrote:
>
> I should add that because the relationship is arbitrary, if I were
> redesigning arch today, I'd probably prefer to use a name syntax that allows
> an arbitrary sequence of branches/versions, e.g., BRA_OR_VER[--BRA_OR_VER]*
>

That's a good idea.  Refining it a little, how about:

``rename'' (at least mentally for now) `branch' to `x' and `version' to
`y', giving us names of the form c--x[--y].

Relax the constraints of x and y as specified in my previous email.
You can now have full names like:

   tla--1.2
   tla--devo--1.2     (i.e. all the existing names)
and
   proj--2.0
   proj--2.0--feature-a
   proj--2.0--feature-b
or even
   proj--2.0a-beta7--bug-2173-fix

Then all we need are good names for `x' and `y'.

Regards,

  Mark.


PS. Miles: here's some words they seem to have forgotten to teach you
about at school:
  http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=civility
  http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=politeness
-- 
|| Mark Thomas
|| efaref.net
||
|| Never anger a dragon for you are crunchy and go well with Brie.