monotone-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Monotone-devel] Announcing "m7", a monotone front-end... which adds


From: Larry Hastings
Subject: Re: [Monotone-devel] Announcing "m7", a monotone front-end... which adds revision numbers!
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:07:59 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)

Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
for x in `monotone automate select c:tag='monotree*'`; do monotone list certs $x; done
  
Ah, so they could be pulled out of monotone without resorting to SQL today.  Thanks!  (It would be an O(N) operation, as compared to an O(1) operation with monotone list tags, but it should still be fast enough that the user wouldn't notice.)

1. it makes special cases of tags.  So far, a tag is a tag is a tag.
   What you propose is that a tag is a tag... unless it looks this
   way.
  
I don't see how these tags are "special cases".  My intent was that they be normal tags, just like any other tag.  The only thing arguably "special" about them are that
  • m7 provides a special command-line shortcut to refer to them,
  • m7 tannotate can recognize and abbreviate them, and
  • there are a lot of them.
But they work just like normal tags, because they are normal tags.  I can say monotone cat revision lch:flu:7 if I like, works fine.  Indeed, m7 currently relies on that fact; the :<number> shortcut simply gets expandsed into t:$username-$computername-<number> before it runs monotone.

2. it assumes that everyone will use m7, and completely ignores the
   possibility of a mixe environment,
  
As with your previous point, I fail to see how this approach "ignore[s] the possibility of a mixed environment".  There is nothing in m7's design or implementation that would preclude interoperating with non-m7 users; m7 does nothing that breaks monotone's data model.  You continue to use monotone directly, and I could sugarcoat it with m7, and we could push and pull between our databases without incident.

If you're really just restating your earlier point about "well, but there'd be a lot more tags now, and that would be inconvenient", then my reply is again "that's a user interface issue".


Let me be clear: I am hardly opposed to changing these tags to custom certs.  Indeed, that could offer its own advantages.  But I am curious about the reaction of the general monotone community.  I am now well acquainted with Mr. Levitte's opinion; what do the rest of you think?

Cheers,


larry

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]