Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> * "Shelving" or "to shelve" means putting something on a shelf. There
>> is one "shelf" per WC.
>>
>> * The thing we put on the shelf is called a "patch" or a "shelved
>> change", and is analogous to a book or a paper placed on the shelf. A
>> numbered version of a patch can be called a "checkpoint".
>>
>> * A series of checkpoint patches is a series of "patch versions" or a
>> "checkpoint series". I think this is simpler than introducing a new term.
>
> Ah yes, of course. Sorry, no need to invent a new term.
>
> Just wondering then, when we create a "series of patches" that belong
> together, that have some ordering, how do we organize that?
Let's clarify. We can mean two possible things when we say 'a series of
patches':
1. "patch versions": a series of successively better patches, all
attempting the same logical thing, all from the same base, and only one
of which is applied at any time;
2. a series of patches, each providing a different logical change,
where each patch is based on the result of applying the previous one.
("quilt" is a tool for managing path series of this kind. My 'option 3'
(local repository) design for checkpointing could also be used in this
way, in a primitive way, but would not support revising earlier patches
in the series which is a key strength of what "quilt" can do.)
I am talking about definition 1 ("patch versions").
I propose patches in a series of patch versions be named "featureA-1",
"featureA-2", ... (This is what I do already, manually, in my own work.)
I propose that we should not attempt to provide any special support for
definition 2 within this "shelving" feature; users can manage that
themselves by simply remembering which feature names depend on which
other ones, or by including some other numbering system within the names.
> Still only one shelf per WC (*the* shelf)? Grouping them through
> naming ("savepoint-1", "savepoint-2" are two shelved patches belonging
> to the same series, but "featureA" (which was reverted) is separate
> because it doesn't have the same prefix)? Or do we need multiple
> shelves with some name too?
>
> Just one more thought: in the namespace of shelved changes, we might
> want to reserve "svn:" or some such prefix, for internal use, to give
> us possibilities for features built upon the shelving infrastructure.
Good thought.
- Julian
