gnu-arch-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Status of global and tree aliases


From: James Blackwell
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Status of global and tree aliases
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:15:20 -0400

Tom Lord wrote:
> I'd be much more worried, if I were you, about how aliases (and other
> version variables) interact with _merging_, although (you'll see
> eventually) that that problem has a convenient solution in `xl'.
>
> That's one of the significant problems I see with jblack's approach:
> it will interact oddly with merging, probably often not in the
> intended ways.

There would be a conflict in =meta-info, much the way I'd expect a
potential conflict with =tagging-method.

Most of the time, things will "just work". Occasionally, if people
add the same alias in two branches at the same time, then merge
them, they merge a simple conflict.


>     > The significant distinction here is that if I get a tree, then replay
>     > a changeset over it, that replay may change the value of a tree alias,
>     > but may not change the value of a version alias.
>
> Actually, it would be undesirable if a merge could _not_ change a
> version variable.   It's only important that verges can change version
> variables in controlled and domain-specific ways.
>
> For example, suppose I am your upstream.  Your version has an alias
> `upstream' defined that points to me.   If I cycle my archive, I
> should be able to commit a change that, when merged, will update your
> `upstream' (though perhaps with protection -- such as asking you to
> confirm the change before it is committed).

The tree alias thing should be able to handle this, and sure we could
later add on an internal to tla list of 'special' variables 
that if they're changed, causes tla to bomb out unless a flag is given.

But again, I stress that I'm not out to solve the version alias feature.

>     > (You've also described precious tree aliases - I'm not really sure if
>     > those are useful, but they are different again)
>
> I do plan to support per-tree overrides of version variables, both
> transient (not committed) and permanent (will be committed).

Could you do this without furth?

-- 
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




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]