Re: [Monotone-devel] partial pull #2 - gaps instead of a single horizon

[Derek Scherger]

Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> Hm.. merging branches with need a flag day serves the purpose of
> reducing the amounts of flag days needed for end-users. Why would you
> want to have multiple flag day branches?

To keep the various things that might be considered for a flag day
logically separated. I'm not saying "let's have multiple flag days" just
"let's keep each little flag day project on its own branch waiting for
hopefully one flag day"

>> The idea of setting the root
>> directory name to "." instead of "" comes to mind
> 
> May I ask what that exactly means? Where can I read more about that?

There's a few places in the code where we simply don't print the root
node because it has an essentially invisible name. In other places
(automate inventory maybe) it gets displayed but its name is "" so
subsequent scripts need to deal with that as a special case. It would be
nice to have some consistency in this (which we could possibly do
anytime in terms of normal output but not for internal storage without a
flag day). So instead of storing a/b/c we might use ./a/b/c where the
root node has a nice (i.e. externally usable) name.

>> as does the idea of
>> coalescing the date/author/branch/changelog certs.
> 
> Yup. Would be a candidate for merging to a flag day branch, if there was
> real code for that... or is there something?

No, but we've talked about it quite a few times. The theory is that it
should actually shrink database storage a bit because the size of each
cert is not entirely trivial and there is lots of them.

Cheers,
Derek