In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:36:44 +0100, Joel Crisp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
jcrisp> I think you might have missed the point slightly...If I jcrisp> understand this correctly, he made the changelog in the past jcrisp> incorporating reversion hashes which have now changed due to jcrisp> the 'rostification' of the database....so the historical fact jcrisp> is that he HAS written down specific hashes which have now jcrisp> changed. Actually, he's talking both about automatically generated changelogs (that's what I understands that he means with "propage Changelog entries") and changelogs that he write himself that include a revision hash, and it's for the latter that I'm asking why he feels the need to, so I can understand that particular situation better. jcrisp> In which case, your comment about the relevancy is accurate, jcrisp> but inapplicable. I disagree. For the automatic changelogs, it's absolutely applicable. jcrisp> On the other had, montone clearly states it is not a 1.0 jcrisp> product, so anyone using it must be aware that the only jcrisp> certain thing is change.... ;-) Yup, that's quite true. jcrisp> Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: jcrisp> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:25:56 +0200, Tom Koelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: jcrisp> > jcrisp> > tkoelman> Another thing I noticed is that, understandably, all jcrisp> > tkoelman> revision hashes have changed. This has the unfortunate side jcrisp> > tkoelman> effect that propage Changelog entries make no sense anymore, jcrisp> > tkoelman> as they contain two revision hashes from the old database. jcrisp> > tkoelman> Also, some of my handwritten changelog entries have the same jcrisp> > tkoelman> problem. Is there some way in which I can replace these old jcrisp> > tkoelman> revision hashes with their new counterparts? jcrisp> > jcrisp> > You can add a comment if you wish, but that really just pushes it into jcrisp> > the future, if there's another rebuild needed. The revs in the merge jcrisp> > and propagate changelogs are really irrelevant, the ancestors of the jcrisp> > merge/propagate are registered separately, and are always correct. Of jcrisp> > course, that doesn't help your hand written changelogs, but then, in jcrisp> > what situations do you end up writing down a specific revision hash? ----- Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://richard.levitte.org/ "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." -- C.S. Lewis _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
