|
From: | Markus Schiltknecht |
Subject: | Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone |
Date: | Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:37:25 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20080110) |
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
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |