On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 10:14 +0200, Wim Oudshoorn wrote: > Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:36:44 +0100, Joel > > Crisp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > 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. > > It seems that nobody uses certificates a lot :-) > Well, a reason to put a revision hash in a certificates is for example:
Hmm, I'd probably try to use something human-readable for these cases... > Revision tree: > > /---... .... -------- B > A > \----... ... .. -----... C - D - .... > > > changelog on B: > Merged in changes between C and D Cherrypick from <branch that C and D are on> <whatever the changelog for D says> > Here you for example explicitly name revisions C and D. > > Or another example: > > > A - B - C - D - E > > and you want to back out the changes between B and D. > You can do: > > A - B - C - D - E > \ > F > > With the content of F equal to B and add the certificate to F: > > changelog: > > backout changes between B and D. backout command syntax changes <changelog entries from C and D, prefixed with "don't" or "undo"> Tim _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
