[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Monotone-devel] Policy branches - first steps
From: |
Timothy Brownawell |
Subject: |
Re: [Monotone-devel] Policy branches - first steps |
Date: |
Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:47:14 -0600 |
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 16:26 +0000, Paul Crowley wrote:
> From the deafening silence, I'm guessing that I might need to make that
> one a bit more bite-size to get some discussion!
>
> At the summit, we had some very interesting ideas and proposals for how
> policy branches could work. These proposals handled not only policy,
> but namespaces and branch renaming, IDs for developers, server control
> and more. A number of possibilities were put forward.
>
> However, right now I'm proposing we start by doing the very least we can
> do to introduce something like policy branches without changing anything
> else. We will want more sophistication for a further release, but this
> will get us started and help us learn about how this stuff plays out in
> practice, which can be more valuable than any amount of theoretical
> discussion. So here's the proposal in brief.
>
> * A policy branch contains one or more policies
> * A policy lists by name the branches it applies to
> * It can also indicate that it applies to all branches that start with a
> particular prefix
> * It lists the keys which can commit to that branch
> * or it delegates all decisions about it to another branch
>
> So: nothing in there to handle branch renames, or to name developers.
...I don't see how this would be extended to handle branch renaming.
A different idea that's been floating around is to have branch certs be
(project name, random_id), and then the policy branch (probably named
(project, null_id)) contains a {random_id => branch_name} mapping.
> You can't arrange for one branch to have two names because everything is
> explicit about the name it applies to. A policy may not introduce
> ambiguity. Nothing else in Monotone needs to change to handle the
> policies, as far as I can tell.
>
> Does that seem like the right way forward?
--
Timothy
Free (experimental) public monotone hosting: http://mtn-host.prjek.net
- [Monotone-devel] Policy branches - first steps, Paul Crowley, 2007/02/16
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Policy branches - first steps, Paul Crowley, 2007/02/20
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Policy branches - first steps,
Timothy Brownawell <=
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Policy branches - first steps, Paul Crowley, 2007/02/26
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Policy branches - first steps, Steven E. Harris, 2007/02/26
- [Monotone-devel] Crypto and SHA-1, was Policy branches - first steps, Paul Crowley, 2007/02/26
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Crypto and SHA-1, was Policy branches - first steps, Lapo Luchini, 2007/02/27
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Crypto and SHA-1, was Policy branches - first steps, Paul Crowley, 2007/02/27
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Policy branches - first steps, Justin Patrin, 2007/02/26
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Policy branches - first steps, Jack Lloyd, 2007/02/26
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Policy branches - first steps, Justin Patrin, 2007/02/26
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Policy branches - first steps, Paul Crowley, 2007/02/26
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Policy branches - first steps, Brian May, 2007/02/26