[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 20:26:39 -0700 (PDT) |
> From: Aaron Bentley <address@hidden>
> Tom Lord wrote:
> > 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).
> I'm a bit lost about what this tool is for.
What people want is something that will let them look at "foo.c" and
see (something like:)
int
some_fn ()
{
static int x = 0;
>>>>>> base-0 (address@hidden, 12-14-1981)
return x;
------ patch-1 (address@hidden, 1-13-1982)
return ++x;
------ patch-2 (address@hidden, 1-15-1982)
return x++;
>>>>>>
}
So, I'm saying, make a `patch' variation that will take this:
int
some_fn ()
{
static int x = 0;
>>>>>> base-0 (address@hidden, 12-14-1981)
return x;
------ patch-1 (address@hidden, 1-13-1982)
return ++x;
>>>>>>
}
plus the changeset for patch-2, and yield the first version.
Then, use arch to construct a parallel version. This thing:
> > 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.
using normal `patch' in tla--devo--1.3 and `annotating-patch' in
Annotated-tla--devo--1.3.
> I'm a bit out of my depth here, since I haven't used
> annotations.
I don't either. I think they are mostly overrated. But it is a very
common request. I suspect people take to them when their trees get
very confused and they're trying to figure out what the hell happened.
I suppose it's also good for looking at some code snippet and asking
"who is the genius that wrote _this_ bit".
The above design sketch let's you do annotate queries just by checking
out the "Annotated-" tree and looking at directly.
> Is it
> okay to require that annotations cannot be changed without committing a
> new revision to the source tree? (1:1 will introduce that requirement.)
Yeah. Annotations are just a fancy way to view history.
> > You'd also need some fanciness to get the base-0 revision right.
> If all of these revisions are tags, doesn't patch-N have the same
> problems as base-0?
The "Annotated-" revisions aren't tags. They're separate from the
arch perspective (although have common patch logs).
> > That'll roughly doubles the archive storage needed and puts more
> > pressure on revlibs --- but that's _all_ it does.
> Hmm. I wasn't suggesting storing any data in the annotation tree (just
> metadata), so the archive storage should be considerably less than half
> of the source tree. Maybe I'm not understanding you.
Clearer now? Or not?
-t
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], (continued)
- [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, 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], 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], 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
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix], James Blackwell, 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] cscvs version splitting [was Re: Working out a branching scheme], Charles Duffy, 2004/04/05