Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] feature plan -- downstream branches

[Aaron Bentley]

Tom Lord wrote:

> It shouldn't be necessary to consult archives (e.g., read log files) 
> just to prune out downstream branches from an archive listing.

But, in my view, it shouldn't be necessary to name a branch in a certain 
way in order to hide it, and it should be possible to hide and unhide 
branches.  I'd like [ar]browse to consult the log file for the latest 
revision anyway, since it may contain such interesting stuff as 
"branch-status: inactive" or "branch-description: input validation 
fixes" or "successor-version: address@hidden/tla--devo--1.4"

I'd rather see a separate file for per-version metadata, but if it's 
going in the patchlogs, I think browse commands should read the latest 
patchlog to see what's in there.

You said, "The latest patch-log entry for the tree-version of the 
project tree may contain a header"..."Variables without an explicitly 
set value have the value false".  So I'm assuming that when the patchlog 
gets cooked, it gets copies of all unchanged variables from the previous 
revision.  Is that a misinterpretation?

> The correlation between physical and logical up/down-stream
> relationships is, like ancestry and revision names, voluntary and
> deliberate.  That is, you have to explicitly choose to use a logically
> downstream name for a physically downstream branch, although the
> convenience commands encourage you to do so.

Sure, but it makes naming confusing, and I thought it would be a way to 
avoid the issue of "what character do we use".

Aaron