Nathaniel Smith wrote:
people who haven't yet internalized
monotone's model of branches are dazed and confused at the idea of a
revision that is in no branch, and we should try to not confuse such
people when we can avoid it. There's a tension, in general, where a
system should simultaneously w
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 07:53:23PM +0200, Wim Oudshoorn wrote:
> Emile Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yuck. cert.cc:guess_branch(revision) defaults to using
> > app.branch_name() if one is set; ie. you are in a working copy.
> > There are 4 commands using guess_branch to decide how to c
Emile Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yuck. cert.cc:guess_branch(revision) defaults to using
> app.branch_name() if one is set; ie. you are in a working copy.
> There are 4 commands using guess_branch to decide how to cert a new
> revision:
>
> approve
> disapprove
> checkout
> commit
>From
Yuck. cert.cc:guess_branch(revision) defaults to using
app.branch_name() if one is set; ie. you are in a working copy.
There are 4 commands using guess_branch to decide how to cert a new
revision:
approve
disapprove
checkout
commit
I would argue that only commit should default to using the worki
In our repository we have a few revisions with no branch certificate.
It seems that they are caused by using
monotone disapprove REVISION
AFAICT monotone disapprove tries to figure out the branch
from the current working directory and uses that branch
to certify the disapprove node.
If the comm
