Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Using monotone in a team

[Hugo Cornelis]

Thanks for all the answers, to keep everyone busy 8-). here is one
more question :

So again three parts of an application : A, B, C, with developers I and J.

I and J setup some fancy Lua hooks that allows us to proceed with
development in the way previously outlined.

Now, if I am correct, a third user, K, can clone our work, and start
his own development, independent from ours, so using his own policies
for branching, attaching certs and so on.

After six months, K joins our group, how do we reconcile the
repositories ?  How do we extend the original for ABC and IJ policies,
such that e.g. K can work on D as an expert, with all necessary certs
and trust relationships ?  Preferable without losing any history, this
is ...


Hugo


On 12/1/06, Boris <address@hidden> wrote:
> Timothy Brownawell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 01:01 +0000, Boris wrote:
> >> Timothy Brownawell wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>> The hook get_revision_cert_trust() is called for every
> >>>> value/name pair with a table (list) of signers. What you want to do
> >>>> here is to check if your new value/name pair which indicates the
> >>>> "impact on A, B and/or C" is present *and* if the revision has been
> >>>> approved by J (then the value/name pair branch="<branchname>"
> >>>> should exist and should be signed by J).
> >>>
> >>> ...but, it only sees *one* name/value pair at a time. So I don't
> >>> think it's possible to say "the presence of a cert saying X was
> >>> edited means to not trust a branch cert by Y".
> >>
> >> Then I interpreted the documentation right at least. :-) If you have
> >> a revision with the four certs for branch, author, changelog and
> >> date the hook get_revision_cert_trust() is called four times, right?
> >> Only if get_revision_cert_trust() returns true four times the
> >> revision is accepted (for example by 'mtn update')? This means we
> >> have a kind of AND-condition between the four certs. What Hugo was
> >> asking for was something like an AND-condition for the "foo was
> >> changed" cert and "approved by J" cert but only if the "foo was
> >> changed" cert exists.
> >
> > No, each name/value pair is considered independently. So no
> > AND-condition between certs with different names (or different
> > values).
>
> But what happens if the cert for date for example returns false while the
> other three return true? Isn't this revision then rejected for the branch
> (actually any branch)? Or is the only check which is important the one for
> the branch cert?
>
> >> I don't know Lua enough yet. But why aren't all of the certs simply
> >> passed in one call to get_revision_cert_trust()? Then it should be
> >> easily possible to AND/OR/NOR whatever you want to do?
> >
> > Because it's deciding whether we want to trust that particular
> > name/value assertion, rather than whether we want to trust the
> > revision itself. Which means we can, say, trust a rev for use in one
> > branch but not another.
>
> I see. In order to support this in Lua the branchname would need to be
> passed to the hook, too? (not a request - just trying to understand the
> details :)
>
> Boris
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Monotone-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel


--
                   Hugo Cornelis Ph.D.

                 Research Imaging Center
  University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
                   7703 Floyd Curl Drive
                San Antonio, TX  78284-6240

                   Phone: 210 567 8112
                     Fax: 210 567 8152