[Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla import versus tla commit

[Stefan Monnier]

>> Huh?  Mirrors would work just as they do now: if you've updated them
>> since the `undo', they'll have the undo applied, otherwise they won't.
>> The undo is a change propagated just like the others.  Of course this
>> change will not be a 100% undo in that it will leave a trace.
>> E.g. the undo-change itself will have to be kept around so it can be
>> propagated to further mirrors.  And obviously, we can't allow just
>> arbitrary archive changes via such special changesets.  Only some
>> specific ones like `undo' or `updatelog'.

> Why not just commit a new changeset with the changes undone? That's already
> possible. It leaves a trace that at one point in time it was this way, but
> then it changed back to the old way.

Well, this discussion is about how to do more than that because some people
don't find it sufficient.

In my experience it happens every once in a while that an old log message
needs to be fixed (it was incomplete, incorrect, ...).  Committing a new
revision that changes the message in {arch}.../patch-log is OK but won't
help the poor guy who browses the revisions and wonders what that old
changeset does.

None of this is high priority as far as I'm concerned, but I was just
pointing out that an approach based on "eventual consistency" (similar to
NNTP's "supercedes" header) might be better than one based on keeping track
of all the copies we make.


        Stefan