Re: [Monotone-devel] monotone Hacking

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:57:34AM -0500, Hugo Cornelis wrote:
> On 9/11/07, Nathaniel Smith <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I propose that "set of revisions" ~ "branch"?  It would definitely be
> > nice to have more branch metadata.
> >
> 
> Yes, there is a relationship between them, I am not sure what you mean
> with ~ (what is the difference between '~' and '=' ?).

~ is like =, just more vague :-).

> Just some ideas:
> 
> Consider (user-visible) features F and G, implemented both in branch
> A.  Each feature can easily constituted of multiple changesets, but I
> assume for a moment that no single changeset is related to both F and
> G at the same time.  In this case I would like to see exactly two
> entries in my second level log file (and there is an entry in the
> first level monotone log for each changeset).

So perhaps it would be better to... implement F and G in branches F
and G?  That at least reduces the proliferation of mechanisms and UI
for them.

If you mean, rather, that F and G are two general pieces of
functionality, and over a long period of time you want to consistently
mark all the changes that happen to touch on that functionality, then
I guess branches aren't as ideal.  

At the monotone level, I guess a UI for that would be something like:

-- Commit message editor --
Increase flow through the frobulator to reduce blockage.

Keywords: frob, nozzle
-- End commit message editr --

?

-- Nathaniel

-- 
Damn the Solar System.  Bad light; planets too distant; pestered with
comets; feeble contrivance; could make a better one myself.
  -- Lord Jeffrey