Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone

[Thomas Moschny]

On Monday 28 January 2008, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> Probably.  IIRC it's also been suggested that certs should have a
> version number.  Obvious other things to fix are references to key
> and/or branch names.  (And presumably tag names, if one wants to be
> able to rename tags.)  Wasn't there also talk about having all certs
> contain an author field?

Every cert should probably carry an 'author' and a 'date' field. Note that 
author and signer can be different.

Maybe one also wants to have a message' field, but I'm not sure what the use 
case would be, and we surely don't want to continue that ad infinitum (msg 
for the msg for the msg...).

This would leave us with currently four pre-defined cert types: 'commit' 
resp. 'commit-message', 'branch', 'tag' and 'suspend'.

Thoughts?

-- 
Thomas Moschny  <address@hidden>

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.