On 2013-06-27, at 10:37, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 27 June 2013 08:32, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
without Monticello file back-end no?
No, in fact it's very much dependent on Monticello filetree back end. This backend has the granularity which allow a use of git querying / fetching facilities to the level associated with changesets.
I could implement a use of a gitfiletree:// repo as a complete replacement of a live changeset + monticello repository in one, if needed.
Still wondering if this is the way to go.
I think it is a very good start :), eventually we have to come up with second version of the filetree format as the current one has a major limitiation: categories are stored in the method source
Impact: - md5 hashes of the pure ST method sources do not correspond the md5 hashes in the git repository - each file-in requires another strip-the-category-path
*cough* *cough* You mean SHA-1, I hope.
ups, right :D
But also you have a good point re comparing hashes, but let's also not forget that whitespace changes will affect the hash. You're right: storing the metadata of the thing separate from the thing itself allows you to add to the _description_ of a thing without touching the thing itself.
frank