Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Working out a branching scheme [was: tag --seal --fix]

[Aaron Bentley]

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.

> 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.

I'm a bit out of my depth here, since I haven't used annotations.  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.)

> 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?

> 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.

Aaron