tags (was: Re: 0.8 release plans)

[Jan Hudec]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:19:22 +0100, Erik Bågfors wrote:
> 2006/2/11, Robey Pointer <robey at lag.net>:
> > Does anyone *not* like jam's compromise proposal? (on the wiki -- I'm
> > offline so I can't find it right now)  If nobody speaks up, let's
> > just do that. ;)

I certainly *do* like it.

There is one issue, though. Since the tag list should be a /branch/ property,
it would be useful to have tree root ids, so it could actually be stored in
the repository.

I think I can actually think of a good way to define root-id for existing
branches. Just take the revision ID of the oldest revision. To avoid problems
with skewed clock, first select only the revisions without non-NULL parents
and select the oldest if there is more than one (there shouldn't be).

Ás for the format, rio (mentioned on wiki) is not appropriate for other
reasons. Basically to best utilize existing merge code, each property must be
recorded on a single line -- but rio escapes \n -> \n\t.

> I just have a question.  I think I read that someone wanted to be able
> to annotate revisions.  So that someone can go in and annotate my
> commit and say that I suck and my changes brings in bugs, for example.
> 
> This means that we will have multiple properties on a revision and
> they should all be able to be merged, etc.  It seams like it should
> use the same code for these two things?
> 
> Not that I know what I'm talking about here :)

Yes. They should. And they should share some code with other properties.
I already started work on some of that.

There is one issue. Each property must have it's own weave and each entry
must be stored as a single line in that weave.

-- 
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060211/11fe3075/attachment.pgp