On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 07:44:22AM -0400 I heard the voice of

Perhaps the difference is that we're making a [fine] distinction
between "useful in a truely distributed system" and "useful when
WORKING in a truely distributed system".  cworth's point back up a few
posts is good; nearly all of my use of revnos is in direct interaction
with the tool, where the revnos just came from looking at the history.
And of those uses that aren't in that class, nearly all of THOSE are
very transient.  Non-local (in time or space) stability in either of
those cases is a total non-concern.


-- 
Matthew Fuller     (MF4839)   |  fullermd@over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
           On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.
-

[ message continues ]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:03:22 -0500

Sure, but if they're just a local feature then why propagate them with
the distributed data?  If they're meant only to be used locally,
they can be guaranteed to be stable by never replicating
them, with obvious benefits for the local user.  However bzr makes the
(IMO) mistake of including them in the data that is distributed 
between repos.  This suggests bzr team just doesn't care about the
distributed models where this will not help and will quite possibly
lead to frustration and confusion.  And yes, I know that you
haven't seen those situations yourself yet.  Obviously, it's the
Bzr teams trade-off to make, but if an avid user like yourself thinks
of revno's as local, perhaps they've made the wrong choice.

Sean
-

[ message continues ]