Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone

[Markus Schiltknecht]

Hi,

Thomas Moschny wrote:
> Hmm, it's more like this:
>
> name = 'commit',      value = (author, date, comment=changelog, branch)
> name = 'tag',         value = (author, date, comment, tag)
> name = 'suspend',     value = (author, date, comment, branch)
> name = 'test-result', value = (author, date, comment?, value)
>
> Ideally 'branch' and 'tag' (as well as the 'signer') should ideally not be 
> plain names but somehow reference branches, tags and keys, respectively, so 
> that renaming becomes possible.

Well, that's pretty much what I meant. However, seen from the database 
layer, I certainly wouldn't stuff all that in a single 'value' field. A 
new revision_certs table could IMO look like:

CREATE TABLE new_revision_certs
(
        hash not null unique,   -- consistency checking hash
        rev_id not null,        -- joins with revisions.id
        name not null,          -- name of the cert
        date not null,          -- timestamp of the cert
        author not null,
        signer not null,
        signature not null
);

Aren't we are pretty much on the same line? Anybody seeing any real 
disadvantage, despite requiring a flag day?

Regards

Markus