strategy: wip

[topbloke-formulae.git] / strategy.tex

diff --git a/strategy.tex b/strategy.tex
index a3acc81ec7560dec9a0cd0e9e7b2311ac10a4194..eff0adfd8ca423dd3668b48c386189f352d086cc 100644 (file)
--- a/strategy.tex
+++ b/strategy.tex
@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
-When we are trying to do a merge of some kind, in general,
-we want to merge some source commits $S_0 \ldots S_n$.
-We'll write $S_0 = L$.  We require that $L$ is the current git ref
-for $\patchof{L}$.
+When we are trying to do an update of some kind, in general,
+for each patch $\pc$
+we want to merge some source commits $S \in \set S_{\pc}$.
+We require $\patchof{S} = \pc$,
+and $\tipcc \in \set S_{\pc}$.
 
 \stdsection{Notation}
 
@@ -14,7 +15,7 @@ The set of direct dependencies (in the form $\py$)
 requested in the commit $K$ ($K \in \pn$) for the patch $\p$.
 
 \item[ $\pc \hasdirdep \p$ ]
-The Topbloke commit set $\pc$ has as a direct contributors the
+The Topbloke commit set $\pc$ has as a direct contributor the
 commit set $\p$.  This is an acyclic relation.
 
 \item[ $\p \hasdep \pq$ ]
@@ -23,9 +24,9 @@ set $\pq$.
 Acyclic; the completion of $\hasdirdep$ into a
 partial order.
 
-\item[ $\set E_{\pc}$ ]
-$ \bigcup_i \pendsof{S_i}{\pc} $.
-All the ends of $\pc$ in the sources.
+%\item[ $\set E_{\pc}$ ]
+%$ \bigcup_i \pendsof{S_{\pc,i}}{\pc} $.
+%All the ends of $\pc$ in the sources.
 
 \item[ $ \tipzc, \tipcc, \tipuc, \tipfc $ ]
 The git ref for the Topbloke commit set $\pc$: respectively,
@@ -35,10 +36,11 @@ the original, current, updated, and final values.
 
 \section{Planning phase}
 
-The planning phase computes: 
+The results of the planning phase consist of: 
 \begin{itemize*}
-\item{ The relation $\hasdirdep$ and hence the ordering $\hasdep$. }
-\item{ For each commit set $\pc$, the order in which to merge
+\item{ The relation $\hasdirdep$ and hence the partial order $\hasdep$. }
+\item{ For each commit set $\pc$, a confirmed set of sources $\set S_{\pc}$. }
+\item{ For each commit set $\pc$, the order in which to merge the sources
         $E_{\pc,j} \in \set E_{\pc}$. }
 \item{ For each $E_{\pc,j}$ an intended merge base $M_{\pc,j}$. }
 \end{itemize*}
@@ -130,16 +132,16 @@ it is, are we fast forward to $E_i$
 and drop $E_i$ from the planned ordering.
 
 Then we will merge the direct contributors and the sources' ends.
-
 This generates more commits $\tipuc \in \pc$, but none in any other
-commit set.  We maintain XXX FIXME IS THIS THE BEST THING?
+commit set.  We maintain
 $$
  \bigforall_{\p \isdep \pc}
- \pancsof{\tipcc}{\p} \subset \left[
-   \tipfa \p \cup
-   \bigcup_{E \in \set E_{\pc}} \pancsof{E}{\p}
-  \right]
+ \pancsof{\tipcc}{\p} \subset
+   \pancsof{\tipfa \p}{\p}
 $$
+\proof{
+ For $\tipcc = \tipzc$, $T$ ...WRONG WE NEED $\tipfa \p$ TO BE IN $\set E$ SOMEHOW
+}
 
 \subsection{Merge Contributors for $\pcy$}
 
@@ -147,16 +149,18 @@ Merge $\pcn$ into $\tipc$.  That is, merge with
 $L = \tipc, R = \tipfa{\pcn}, M = \baseof{\tipc}$.
 to construct $\tipu$.
 
-Merge conditions: Ingredients satisfied by construction.
+Merge conditions:
+
+Ingredients satisfied by construction.
 Tip Merge satisfied by construction.  Merge Acyclic follows
 from Perfect Contents and $\hasdep$ being acyclic.
 
-Removal Merge Ends: For $\p = \pc$, $M \nothaspatch \p$.
-For $p \neq \pc$, by Tip Contents,
+Removal Merge Ends: For $\p = \pc$, $M \nothaspatch \p$; OK.
+For $\p \neq \pc$, by Tip Contents,
 $M \haspatch \p \equiv L \haspatch \p$, so we need only
 worry about $X = R, Y = L$; ie $L \haspatch \p$,
 $M = \baseof{L} \haspatch \p$.
-By Tip Contents for $L$, $D \le L \equiv D \le M$.  $\qed$
+By Tip Contents for $L$, $D \le L \equiv D \le M$.  OK.~~$\qed$
 
 WIP UP TO HERE
 
@@ -167,6 +171,10 @@ $R \haspatch \p$.  So we only need to worry about $Y = R = \tipfa \pcn$.
 By Tip Dependencies $\tipfa \pcn \ge \tipfa \py$.
 And by Tip Sources $\tipfa \py \ge $
 
+want to prove $E \le \tipfc$ where $E \in \pendsof{\tipcc}{\py}$
+
+$\pancsof{\tipcc}{\py} = $
+
 
 computed $\tipfa \py$, and by Perfect Contents for $\py$