Re: [Monotone-devel] bugfest analysis

[Thomas Keller]

Am 10.05.2010 04:52, schrieb Derek Scherger:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Thomas Keller <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> * #20447: mtn diff <filename> fails inside of a renamed directory
>>  -> net.venge.monotone.bugfest-2010.20447-dscherger
>>  -> @Derek: whats your plan here? Is this reviewable?
>>
> 
> I spent most of the day working on this and made some big changes
> (reimplementing diff in terms of rosters rather than csets) but they didn't
> actually fix the problem, which turns out to be somewhat complicated. I was
> out for a long drive today and spent quite a lot of time thinking about it.
> I have some ideas but I'm not yet sure if they'll work out or not. I'll
> follow up with another email explaining the details.

Ok, fine!

>> * #12773: show which branch a tag belongs to
>>  -> net.venge.monotone.bugfest-2010.12273-dscherger
>>  -> Patch looks cool, a test would be nice though. Wrt space issues,
>>  we could shorten the revision to gain additional space - I think
>>  the chance of finding two partial tagged revisions which can be
>>  completed to two different full revision ids is rather low.
>>  -> points: 5 to Derek (if you add a test :)
>>
> 
> OK, adding a test should be easy. Do we have something to produce short
> revision ids or should I just grab the first N chars or something?

Not yet currently, and I fear we might even have different visual
representations already (f.e. some with "...", some without). Although
shortening a string is a very simple task, I think it would be a good
idea to have one function in a central place which does that for the id
type we have (and returns a string).

>> * #13604: need 'undelete' ('undrop'?)
>>  -> net.venge.monotone.bugfest-2010.13604-stephen_leake
>>  -> patch looks largely cool, some minor objections:
>>    "revert = not undrop;" - is the "not" operator portable?
>>    "bool undrop" function argument - an enum would be cool :)
>>  -> possible issue left: undrop does not work correctly when
>>     called on a dropped directory without --recursive. It still
>>     re-creates all childs of the directory, while one would assume
>>     that only the directory itself is recreated (and all the other
>>     files keep dropped)
>>  -> points: 5 to Stephe (if the remaining issues are sorted out)
>>
> 
> I'm somewhat curious about  this one but I haven't looked at the bug or the
> fixes yet. Is undrop/undelete somehow different from revert or is this just
> a command alias?

Stephe can comment more here, basically it calls into revert's code, but
with a few more bells and whistles.

> Other than that I'm quite happy with the results. We've closed many bugs
>> and I think we should do that again some time in the future to bring
>> down the bug count even more.
>>
> 
> Agreed. I personally find having a few people around working at the same
> time is  quite motivating.

Yep, absolutely.

Thomas.

-- 
GPG-Key 0x160D1092 | address@hidden | http://thomaskeller.biz
Please note that according to the EU law on data retention, information
on every electronic information exchange might be retained for a period
of six months or longer: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/?lang=en

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature