[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion |
Date: |
16 Apr 2004 12:13:38 +0900 |
Aaron Bentley <address@hidden> writes:
> > changing to a representation that used a single file per directory
> > to hold explicit tags would improve things quite a bit. However
> > there doesn't appear to be any rush to change the implementation.
>
> Archives contain the paths of those .id files. We can't change the
> representation of explicit without
> a) breaking archive compatibility or
> b) layering an alternate namespace on top of the filesystem.
It doesn't have to break the old reprensetation -- just add an alternate
representation for the same tag namespace, but don't get rid of the code
implement the old representation.
Of course because archives containing a new representation won't be
usable by old versions of tla, a new archive-version would have to be
used.
So when tla++ with the new super-explicit tags gets released, nothing
will change. When the maintainer of some tree feels it's safe he'd
create a new archive with the new archive version (tagged to the old
archive), and commit a changeset that removes all the .arch-ids/*.id
files and adds the new per-directory id files. The changeset wouldn't
contain any changes to normal files, just to meta-info files.
[I guess you could also make some sort of compatibility hack that uses
the new representation in project-trees, but then converts it to the old
many-files representation in changesets -- but that seems much too
complicated...]
-Miles
--
Is it true that nothing can be known? If so how do we know this? -Woody Allen
- [Gnu-arch-users] implicit discussion, Colin Walters, 2004/04/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] implicit discussion, Matthieu Moy, 2004/04/09
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Miles Bader, 2004/04/09
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Colin Walters, 2004/04/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Martin Pool, 2004/04/15
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Miles Bader, 2004/04/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Aaron Bentley, 2004/04/15
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion,
Miles Bader <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Aaron Bentley, 2004/04/15
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Miles Bader, 2004/04/15
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Aaron Bentley, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Martin Pool, 2004/04/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Aaron Bentley, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, mbp, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Aaron Bentley, 2004/04/16
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Miles Bader, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Martin Pool, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Robin Farine, 2004/04/16