Thus said Ron W on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 14:12:32 -0400:
> I think that if a "branch from a closed branch" feature is going to be
> added, it should be exactly that and not a "back door" on closed
> leafs.
This raises the question of just what the intended use of a ``closed
leaf'' is supposed to be. The documentation includes this:
A closed leaf is a leaf that should never have direct children.
A closed leaf is any leaf with the closed tag. These leaves are
intended to never be extended with descendants and hence are
omitted from lists of leaves in the command-line and web
interface.
A closed branch is a branch with only closed leaves. Closed
branches are fixed and do not change (unless they are first
reopened)
It would seem that the primary intended use of a closed leaf is simply
to prevent code changes from extending the life of the branch, not
necessarily to prevent new branches.
If we prevent alterations of the branch at a closed leaf node, then can
we still meet the criteria and intended use of closed leaves in these
definitions? I think this is accomplished with the recent check-in I
made (pending review):
http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/d1b5fd8738e
It isn't possible to insert new code in the middle of two non-leaf nodes
in a branch. With [d1b5fd8738e] it will not be possible to extend a
branch on a leaf node that is closed without first removing the closed
tag.
Andy
--
TAI64 timestamp: 4000000053cabd6f
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
