On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 20:54 +0200, Philippe Marschall wrote:
> 2007/5/2, Norbert Hartl <norbert at hartl.name>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > today I wanted to branch my app. While saving a new version
> > I just changed name from App-noha.number to AppBeta-noha.number
> > thinking there is some magic in Monticello. To be honest I had
> > no other idea. I think the Package should stay the same.
> > But those files aren't treated special, right? If I try to
> > figure out the newest version of my branch I have to parse
> > all the file infos myself, right? Or did I misunderstand the
> > way branching is done.
> 
> Every commit is a branch. Filename hackery is very tricky and almost
> guaranteed to break some parts of the UI. Just give the commit a
> unique number and you're done.
> 
I don't agree. As long as your are the only developer there is a linear
progress indicated by the file number. Ok, you can choose filenames on
your onw but I recurr on the filename Monticello provides you. The next
thing which comes near to a branch is a second developer. There you have
two different lines of development. This isn't indicated by filenames
but on what developers do. If you merge two versions you merge the 
"branch". Choosing a different filename prefix you create a second entry
in the Monticello browser. It is shown in the left pane as a separate 
entry. This is what I would recognize as a different development line.
So Monticello provides numbers to differ one file from each other. This
is useful information even if you can't take this as a reliable version
information. About file hackery: While Monticelle shows different
prefixes as different things it does filename hackery itself. So why
does the UI differ things which the code below doesn't??

But I take this as an answer that I have to parse it myself ;)

Norbert