> Le 08/04/2015 02:05, Dale Henrichs a écrit :
> I have threatened in the past to add an option to a repository that
> would eliminate the need to store monticello meta data ... Damien is
> working on "starting from scratch" on the new format, because the
> current implementation supports 4-5 different FileTree formats. Damien's
> work could be leveraged to add an "optional Monticello meta data" option
> to FileTree and if your SCM (like git) gives you per method history with
> the proper tools you can leverage that information..
>
> I would say this could be a reasonable possibility, in that you could
> have two modes of compatibility:
>
> - Complete filetree compatibility for gitfiletree: the current
> situation, with properties and version written to disk.
>
> - Partial filetree compatibility, where that metadata isn't written
> and you rely on gitfiletree to recreate it to export as .mcz.
>
> Partial compatibility has two effects, which need to be considered.
> When using github:// or bitbucket:// urls, filetree will be used and
> your packages will end up having no version number (except .1?), no
> author, no timestamps for methods, etc... And the second one is that,
> if you clone a mcz inside the gitfiletree repository, the mcz ancestry
> of versions and author timestamps on methods will be lost, which is
> something you may not want.