[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix] |
Date: |
Sun, 4 Apr 2004 10:31:06 -0700 (PDT) |
> From: Aaron Bentley <address@hidden>
>> A tactic that you might consider: use CVS or RCS or (least likely but
>> possible) SVN to hold the annotate database. The problem is reduced
>> to plumbing and namespace mapping.
> Another possible tactic: use Arch. Tag the revisions to be annotated,
> (with --no-cacherev) and store the annotations in the patch-log of the
> tag revision.
Holy Cow! That's close to an idea that I think could be _really_
sweet. Are you sure this isn't what you meant?:
Have annotation work on a particular version, possibly on a linear
list of versions. Make tool like `patch' but that updates an
annotated file (it only has to work for known-to-be-exact patching).
Now, derive a new version from the one you want to annotate. So:
tla--devo--1.3 => Annotated-tla--devo--1.3
with a 1:1 mapping of revisions.
You'd also need some fanciness to get the base-0 revision right.
That'll roughly doubles the archive storage needed and puts more
pressure on revlibs --- but that's _all_ it does.
In fact, that's really nice for the few reasons that:
~ existing mechanisms already work for mirroring the
annotate-optimized database. For example, I could mirror one that
somebody else builds rather than having to send particular viewing
queries to their server. And: the existing revlib mechanism can
optimize queries.
~ browsing annotated trees is trivial
~ you get a convenient way to view annotations as of a particular
revision --- e.g., no new mechanism is made to keep track of what
a given file was called at a particular point in history
Best of all: the whole thing looks _very_ simple to implement. I
might even do it myself (by which I don't mean to discourage anyone
from beating me to it).
-t
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], Dustin Sallings, 2004/04/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], Tom Lord, 2004/04/03
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], Stefan Monnier, 2004/04/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], Tom Lord, 2004/04/03
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], Stefan Monnier, 2004/04/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], Tom Lord, 2004/04/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], Aaron Bentley, 2004/04/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix],
Tom Lord <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], Stefan Monnier, 2004/04/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], Aaron Bentley, 2004/04/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], Tom Lord, 2004/04/04
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], Stefan Monnier, 2004/04/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], Stefan Monnier, 2004/04/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], Tom Lord, 2004/04/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], Juliusz Chroboczek, 2004/04/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], Tom Lord, 2004/04/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], Juliusz Chroboczek, 2004/04/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], Tom Lord, 2004/04/05