Monotone 0.26 will use "rosters". I'm not quite sure what they are but
the essentials are:
a. they are smaller than the old revision-metadata format
b. they are more flexible and will permit new features
c. they are totally incompatible with old format
There is a new command to "migrate" from one format to another, but this
doesn't work /always/ as there are some "weird" features that were
supported in old format and are not (yet) with rosters, such as a
revision tree with MULTIPLE roots (like when you "set up" a branch more
than once, maybe in different hosts, and then merge them).
I prepared 0.26pre1 version for my own experimenting.
I'm asking for advice here: should we release them as a "test" version
and let people experiment a bit, or we better wait for 0.26 "final" and
avoid the possible confusion?
According to Lapo Luchini on 1/26/2006 3:35 PM:
> I prepared 0.26pre1 version for my own experimenting.
> I'm asking for advice here: should we release them as a "test" version
> and let people experiment a bit, or we better wait for 0.26 "final" and
> avoid the possible confusion?
As maintainer, it is somewhat your call. But in this case, I think you
are right that marking it "test" as long as the final 0.26 is not out yet
will underscore the fact that the database format may be subject to change.
Life is short - so eat dessert first!
Eric Blake [hidden email] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org