Hello,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 00:14, Stephen Leake
<address@hidden> wrote:
Hendrik Boom <address@hidden> writes:
So my real problem was not knowing about the approve command. I may
have heard about it before, but if I did assumed it was for reporting on
the success of testing, rather than providing a branch name.
Hmm. I would have thought so, too. But that's not what the manual says
(http://www.monotone.ca/docs/Review.html#Review); it seems 'approve' is
a synonym for the 'cert' command I use for creating a new branch.
I guess it makes sense when compared to 'disapprove', but it sounds odd
in my (our) work flow.
'testresult' is for recording the results of testing.
In my view, any of those commands do what one wants when creating a
fork, but none is clear on what it does.
I would vote for a "mtn fork <new_branch_name>" command. If no options
given would create a new branch on the current workspace revision.
No workspace update would be done by default, but could be done by
adding "--update" (or "-u").
Other option would be "-r <revision>", so one could fork from a
specific revision independently of the current workspace.
A third, arguable, option could be if the commit is "real" (cert) or
"virtual" (just changes the "_MTN/options" file). It could be a
"--delayed" or "--local" option. But I don't have strong feelings
about this one.
I don't have a very strong reason to add this command. But I find that
I create a new branch rarely enough that I always have to go see the
manual on how to do it. And doing it at commit time is too late in the
game -- most of the time I have to undo that commit because I forgot
to branch.
The decision to branch is done mostly a long time before the real
commit, so there is a good chance to forget about it at commit time.
Doing "dummy" commits or manually editing the _MTN/options file feels "dirty".
Well, this is just to give an user opinion (using monotone since 0.20
something). Feel free to disregard.