Re: [Gnu-arch-users] c--b--v/base-0

[James Blackwell]

>
>     > From: Zenaan Harkness <address@hidden>
>
>     > When would one see a base-n patch, other than base-0 ?


Tom Lord wrote:
>
> That would be "never".
>
> (In ascii, "base" sorts lower than "patch" which sorts lower than
> "version" which sorts lower than "versionfix".  And who needs more
> than 4, anyway?!?!?!  The thing I screwed up: you can't infer the
> namespace ancestor of a "version-0" revsion from just the name.  Quite
> possibly, the whole --seal noise will have to slowly fade away.  But
> ..... not entirely.   It has utility and some people are using it.
> It's tricky to get right.   An arbitrary decision that has to get
> imposed..... I got it *slightly* wrong in my opinion .... and whatever
> the ultimate decision turns out to be, people will always have mild
> complaints about it (hopefully with such complaints distributed evenly
> across many users))

I'm not married to seal for hiding versions. Other people would be happier
if the hide-the-version functionality were implemented in a different way.

The problem with that is that the proper fix screams just the same way
that a lot of other stuff does for a meta-info branch.

-- 
James Blackwell          Try something fun: For the next 24 hours, give
Smile more!              each person you meet a compliment!

GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400