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

[Thomas Moschny]

Hi!

Markus Schiltknecht wrote
> With that table, we would have a reduction to the following certs:
>
>   - 'commit(-message)' certificate  (where changelog -> comment and
>                                      branchname -> value)
>   - 'tag' certificate               (tagname -> value)
>   - 'test-result' certificate.      (test result -> value)

Add
    - 'suspend' certificate           (branchname -> value, optional comment)

> Every cert, even "private" ones, would then be required to also have a
> date and an author. Optionally also a comment.

Right, that's what I have in mind.

> In a way, this certainly complicates matters. And I'm not quite
> convinced, that the above scheme is better than what we have now.

So, while the pros are clear, what are the disadvantages?

- Thomas

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