[Monotone-devel] Re: branch representation

[Wim Oudshoorn]

Nathaniel Smith <address@hidden> writes:

> So the idea is: what if we got rid of branch certs, and put a branch
> field inside the revision object?  So each revision is uniquely,
> irrevocably, in a single branch.  So each revision is not just a
> snapshot, but a snapshot with a purpose attached.  And instead of
> automatically putting a branch cert on at commit time, you put a
> "yeah, this is good" cert on (since the rev already has a purpose
> built in, your vague affirmation of goodness can be assumed to match
> that).

I can't really follow what you mean with "yea, this is good" cert.
Is that supposed to be a new kind of cert?


> it seems like the code and users both want to think of branch certs
> as at least somewhat special.  I'm thinking of guess_branch, and
> update's tricky handling of branches, and netsync filtering by
> branch...

I think a better way is to deemphasize the importance of the
branch certificate.  I think the concept that it is just
a way to get to a revision is very powerfull.  The reason
I think monotone should by default add a branch certificate
at commit time is convenience, nothing more.    
(Oh and it is a huge convenience.)

>
> This idea does add a significant new piece to the model -- instead of
> the nice clean DAG of snapshots _here_, and generic metadata mechanism
> _there_ setup, we have a piece of magic metadata, that needs to be
> handled differently, etc.

I like this clear model.  I don't think putting the branch inside
the revision is going to solve anything.  It will reduce the flexibility
you have with branches and I don't see any inherit advantage.

Also, I think that with the clean structure it has now, monotone is
actually easier to grasp than most other VC systems.  
The hard thing when explaining monotone to others is let realize
that it IS simple, making it more complex to alleviate that is
the wrong direction IMO.

Wim Oudshoorn.