A GUI tool rendering something like this:

MyPackage-cmm.104
  ancestors:  (MyPackage-cmm.102  (aVersionInfo))
     ancestors:  (MyPackage-cmm.100 (a VersionInfo))
        ancestors:  (MyPackage-cmm.99 (a VersionInfo))
            ancestors:  (MyPackage-cmm.98 (a VersionInfo))
               etc.


MyPackage-cmm.103
  ancestors:  (MyPackage-cmm.101 (aVersionInfo))
    ancestors:  (MyPackage-cmm.100 (a VersionInfo))
        ancestors:  (MyPackage-cmm.99 (a VersionInfo))
            ancestors:  (MyPackage-cmm.98 (a VersionInfo))
               etc.


Irregardless of their version-names, 101 and 103 are part of one
branch, 102--104 are part of the other branch.

>> a branch is based on the ancestry, regardless of how they're
>> grouped in the UI.

The discussion seems to be centered around using a special
naming-scheme that embeds a branch-name into the version-name so the
legacy tools can benefit from the side-effect of simple name-string
sorting to co-locate the versions of a branch in the UI.

But the developers are in control of the version name, they could
rename the branch-portion to something "incorrect", which would cause
the wrongly-named version to be displayed in the wrong place in the
list in terms of its branch-colocation.  I know, the name is
defaulted, etc. so that probably wouldn't happen on accident.  But the
larger point is that you can't really see the _hierarchy_ of branches
in a single sorted list.

I'm not opposed to naming versions, but what if the tools could
already render the actual ancestry model above graphically, which
represents the actual branching that took place; perhaps with
hover-over to see the version-comments and annotations which indicated
the branch-name..

I didn't mean to sound so strongly-opinionated; this is just IMHO;
which is often changed by learning from the folks in this list..

 - Chris



On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Colin Putney <colin at wiresong.com> wrote:
> Chris Muller wrote (among other things):
>
>> it's a tool shortfall that can't display the _real_ branches
>
> and:
>
>> No, a branch is based on the ancestry, regardless of how they're
>> grouped in the UI.
>
> You seem to have some pretty strong opinions about branches. Would you
> care to expand on this a little bit? Maybe we can learn something.
>
> Colin
>
>