Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla1.2 on cygwin

[Dustin Sallings]

On Mar 3, 2004, at 7:46, Tom Lord wrote:


> >      
> > {arch}/emacs/emacs--cvs-trunk/emacs--cvs-trunk--0/address@hidden 
> > -2004/
>
> > rather than the more "intuitive" (to me anyway)
>
> >      
> > {arch}/address@hidden/emacs/emacs--cvs-trunk/emacs--cvs- 
> > trunk--0/

> The archive comes last, rather than first, in order to provide better
> locality of reference, both for interactive perusal and (to a lesser
> extent) for programmatic access.  You'll tend to want to look at logs
> for multiple archives, holding the version constant, more often than
> you'll want to hold the archive constant and vary components of the
> version.

> Neither of these details are justified by an unassailable rationale
> but then I think the design choice in these areas is fairly arbitrary,
> anyway.  It's kind of a "just pick something and stick with it"
> situation.

	As I've attempted to point out several times, but never got a response  
regarding, the way this currently works causes archive corruption when  
working on filesystems that are not case sensitive.

	Two archives with similar branch names, but with different cases will  
pretty much break an archive every time.

	I believe it's more intuitive to list the components in the same order  
they're expressed in other areas.  More importantly, understand that  
the above justification only works when everyone always uses the same  
category and branch names.  Of course, if that happened, then I also  
wouldn't have corrupt archives in the first place.

--
SPY                      My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub  1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <address@hidden>
|    Key fingerprint =  87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6  C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________