[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Status of global and tree aliases
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Status of global and tree aliases |
Date: |
Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:14:44 -0700 (PDT) |
> From: address@hidden (James Blackwell)
> Tom Lord wrote:
>> 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.
That's an unfortunate comparison. If I'm merging from an upstream or
downstream who's following the same process at me then conflicts are
entirely unnecessary because there is a deterministic and easily
stated rule for resolving them. The same is not true of conflicts in
=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.
I'm not convinced by such statements that you've thought through many
scenarios or uses for this.
In general, it's a case where you want to implement feature A but you
don't seem to have stopped to consider whether there is a feature B
that wouldn't be terribly more difficult to implement and that would
provide not only A, but much more besides.
> > 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.
"Special" variables? "unless a flag is given"? This is the kind of
vague design effort that leads to the disease known as "creeping featuritis".
> Could you do this without furth?
What are your engineering reasons for objecting to furth?
-t
- [Gnu-arch-users] Status of global and tree aliases, James Blackwell, 2004/07/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Status of global and tree aliases, Tom Lord, 2004/07/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Status of global and tree aliases, Andrew Suffield, 2004/07/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Status of global and tree aliases, Aaron Bentley, 2004/07/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Status of global and tree aliases, Tom Lord, 2004/07/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Status of global and tree aliases, Aaron Bentley, 2004/07/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Status of global and tree aliases, Tom Lord, 2004/07/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Status of global and tree aliases, Jan Hudec, 2004/07/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Status of global and tree aliases, Tom Lord, 2004/07/21
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Status of global and tree aliases, James Blackwell, 2004/07/20