Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Arch revision namespace

2005-05-24 Thread Jason McCarty
Tom Lord wrote: > > Basically, the idea is that anyone can publish any commit they like by > specifying a name for the commit, the names of immediate ancestors, > and the contents of the tree --- the "snapshot" approach to revision > control. Yes, I'm reversing my opinion of that approach from ne

[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Arch revision namespace

2005-05-24 Thread Tom Lord
Basically, the idea is that anyone can publish any commit they like by specifying a name for the commit, the names of immediate ancestors, and the contents of the tree --- the "snapshot" approach to revision control. Yes, I'm reversing my opinion of that approach from negative to favorable. -t

[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Arch revision namespace

2005-05-24 Thread Tom Lord
From: Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > A good convention for naming commits seems to be: > >/ > > where the `' is nearly anything a client cares to pick and > `' is a contents-summary of the resulting revision. This > both generalizes the requirements on and s

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Arch revision namespace

2005-05-24 Thread John A Meinel
Matthieu Moy wrote: Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: And how exactly adding a completely random suffix to the namespace makes it non-bogus and maybe more intuitive? I believe the real trick here is that under the covers you use the completely random suffix according to the

[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Arch revision namespace

2005-05-24 Thread Matthieu Moy
Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And how exactly adding a completely random suffix to the namespace makes > it non-bogus and maybe more intuitive? Not sure I got all of Tom's idea, but if you add a checksum suffix to the namespace, then ifever you recreate a branch with the same use

[Gnu-arch-users] Arch revision namespace

2005-05-24 Thread Mikhael Goikhman
On 24 May 2005 16:34:55 -0700, Tom Lord wrote: > > > As a policy *tool* I'm very much in favour of a namespace that knows > > about people and projects and branches and ... whatnot. However the > > management of revision identity and the namespace should not be coupled > > They should be co

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: baz, --full option, revision lists: What's the best behavior?

2005-05-24 Thread Tom Lord
> As a policy *tool* I'm very much in favour of a namespace that knows > about people and projects and branches and ... whatnot. However the > management of revision identity and the namespace should not be coupled They should be coupled differently, is all. A good convention for naming co

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: baz, --full option, revision lists: What's the best behavior?

2005-05-24 Thread Robert Collins
On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 22:09 +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: > On 24 May 2005 21:03:39 +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: > > Since some commands display more than one version, the best way to be > > consistant would be to have --full by default everywhere. Another > > issue with this short format is that ma

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: baz, --full option, revision lists: What's the best behavior?

2005-05-24 Thread Mikhael Goikhman
On 24 May 2005 21:03:39 +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: > > Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > And it would be nice to have "missing --desc" shortcut for > > I'll add a --desc option to all commands outputing revision lists. In abrowse, it also does --kind, I think it is ok to includ

[Gnu-arch-users] Re: baz, --full option, revision lists: What's the best behavior?

2005-05-24 Thread Matthieu Moy
Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The issue with the full form is it harms readability for interactive > users. I would seriously consider to use conditional defaults to improve > readability without introducing ambiguity, and have both --full and > --no-full options in one-version-pl

[Gnu-arch-users] Re: baz, --full option, revision lists: What's the best behavior?

2005-05-24 Thread Matthieu Moy
Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And it would be nice to have "missing --desc" shortcut for > consistency, that should often eliminate the need for the pipe > above. In [EMAIL PROTECTED]/bazaar--revision-list--1.4, the -l, --complete-log actually does the equivalent of what "baz mis

[Gnu-arch-users] [ANNOUNCE] Xtla 1.0 released

2005-05-24 Thread Matthieu Moy
After a looong testing period, Xtla has finally reached the first official stable release: 1.0. Xtla is the Emacs front-end to the GNU Arch revision control system. It provides user-friendly wrappers for tla native commands and some higher level features such as the bookmark manager. The main fea

[Gnu-arch-users] Talk about XTLA

2005-05-24 Thread Masatake YAMATO
Japanese subscribers || subscribers at Tokyo region, I'll talk about development method used in XTLA project at Linux Conference held at Japan in Jun 3 2005. For more detail: http://lc.linux.or.jp/lc2005/03.html XTLA project uses gnuarch as version control system. If you attend the conference

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] baz, --full option, revision lists: What's the best behavior?

2005-05-24 Thread Mikhael Goikhman
On 24 May 2005 08:38:38 +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > > We did it for baz missing so that when folk do the fairly natural > thing : baz missing [branch] | baz cat-archive-log, it works. revisions > is much less likely to be piped wholesale, ditto for logs. First, "baz missing" ui was changed in