Re: [Monotone-devel] renaming branches (was Re: Ideas and questions.)

[Christof Petig]

graydon hoare schrieb:
> perhaps we should put it to a vote. the reason we're delaying 0.17 at
> the moment is that we're working on epochs. this scheme would replace
> epochs. so it produces 3 possible futures. which would y'all perfer?
>
>   1. release 0.17 without any epoch support, do a big smelly email
>      telling everyone to pull from our rebuilt database just like with
>      0.16, perhaps also with a protocol number bump again, and have no
>      particularly better way of avoiding the breakage of old and new
>      revision graphs colliding. then work on this branch-as-ID stuff
>      for 0.18.

Not again. I regularly sync against several different servers and if all
servers and all clients within reach have to update at the same moment
it causes a great pain (read I need severaly monotone binaries on one
machine). I already encountered this twice (with monotone, monotone-viz
and my own projects) and I don't want to go through it again (since the
number of projects grow).

>   2. delay 0.17 as long as it takes to rewrite the cert format and
>      make branches into random IDs, possibly weeks or months, and
>      release that when we're good and ready.

delaying 0.17 is not appealing to me. More and more people are using
monotone and delaying the syntax change (restrictions) and the database
format change (sqlite3) any longer does not feel good to me.

>   3. finish working on epochs, release 0.17, and forget about this
>      crazy branch-as-ID stuff (possibly because it has some horrible
>      flaw I haven't forseen)

4. release with as much epoch support as is absolutely needed and
replace preliminary epoch support by a new scheme [branch-as-ID is a
good idea (how to compute that ID?); distributed renaming certs (see my
post on deleting/changing certs for details) or any other idea we work
out after 0.17].

   Christof

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature