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

[Dustin Sallings]

On Mar 11, 2004, at 15:03, Miles Bader wrote:

> I suppose the point was just that, for the most part, as a user using a
> case-insensitive filesystem, it's your job to Not Do That (create 
> conflicting
> names that cause problems in your locally restrictive namespace).
>
> This is obviously hard if you want to use archives created by others 
> who
> won't follow that rule, and in such cases life may be hard for you, 
> but I'm
> not sure that there's really way automatic way that arch can do it.
>
> IOW, the tool can't solve the problem.

	I think the argument is whether another issue in the tool is enhancing 
the problem in this situation.

	The primary point I'm trying to make is that I think branch names (and 
even category) should be considered private to archive owners.  It's 
one thing to worry about filenames within a project, but should users 
of a mainstream arch really consider their private microbranch names to 
be filenames that can conflict with users without case sensitive 
filesystems at some point in the future?

	I don't expect arch to deal with every problem that comes up, but in 
this case, it seems to me that there is a design decision that does 
very little but make people have to be aware of problems that their 
branch names might cause for other users.

	Again, this thread started when another user found the layout 
counterintuitive (why are category, branch, and version more 
significant than archive in this one part of the tree?).  I agree that 
it's counterintuitive, and also point out a problem it causes.  Sure, 
making everyone agree on what category and branch names should look 
like within a project will work around the issue, but it doesn't seem 
like the right approach.

--
Dustin Sallings