Re: [Gnu-arch-users] distinguished branch name, "clone"

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Colin Walters <address@hidden>

    > > Another idea is a bit more like, sigh, XML:  provide a mechanism by
    > > which anyone can publish their own namespace-usage guide for their own
    > > little corner of the universe, and anyone else can use all of these
    > > separate guides as if they were one big one.   That's the overarch
    > > approach and, although it's a much harder idea to fully develop, it is
    > > at least closer to the peer-to-peer, we're-all-equals, design of arch
    > > so far.

    > Sounds like major overkill :)  At least until we can think of some other
    > namespace issues that would require such a thing.


Just considering the "implicit mainline" hack.

I might have the intentions:


  ~ get a project tree for the latest release

  ~ get a project tree for top of the gatekeeper tree for
    the next upcoming release

  ~ get a project tree for top of the gatekeeper tree for
    the next upcoming release that is not in "feature freeze"
    state

  ~ get a project tree against which I should prepare changes
    to send to my designated gatekeeper

  ~ get a project tree for the latest release for the 
    FOOBAR processor

  ~ etc.


which of those is "mainline"?

"HEAD" considered independently of any particular revision control
system, means "the latest".  Arch already has that concept: latest
patch level in the highest version number of a branch.  I don't see
any case here for introducing a new partial order among branch names
other than you saying "common case, common case, common case" -- a
claim I don't think is really strong at this stage.


-t