Re: [Gnu-arch-users] feature plans from over here....

[James Blackwell]

>     > From: address@hidden (James Blackwell)
>     > I like the idea conceptually, but I think it could stand an improvement
>     > or two...
 
Tom wrote:
> For that reason, and to give a heads up to other developers that I
> want to "own" the ~/.arch-params format for the next few weeks, are
> why I posted.

Ok. You got it from me and stuff that goes through me for the "next few
weeks". 

>     > 1. I really like the role based setup, in which there's a (still human
>     > readable) .arch-params equivilant. However, rather than tying the role
>     > to the my-id, I think we should have "role names" instead. 
>
> That is, in fact, how my colleague has speced it out.   
>
> This is a small enough change (although it sets a stage for later more
> substantial changes) so I think we'll just wait to post the merge
> request rather than trying to debate a detailed spec in advance.....
> the guy doing the work might decide to disagree with that, though :-)
>

Ok.

>     > 2. re archive aliases. Nah. I think we should have fully qualified
>     > aliases. I.E. jbdev expands to address@hidden/tla--devo--1.2, 
>     > tomtla expands to address@hidden/tla--devo, so forth and so on.
>
> This is just a first step towards that.
>
> We have divided up our plans into three functional areas:

Ok

>     > 3. Re: Keeping all of the archive locations in one file: You must have
>     > read my mind, because Robert and I discussed his just the other day.
>
> You must have misread my mind because that isn't quite what I meant.
>
> [ all this stuff will be stored in relational tables ]
> (And then, later, we'll add some other stuff to hats and some
> additional structure to ~/.arch-params.)
>

No problem. I know what you mean by tables, and I klnow you come up with
sane layouts. :) 

Ok.

>
>
>     > The rest of it, I think I like it as is, though I'm a little
>     > nervous on he transactualizinaterating .arch-params,
>     > particularly when it comes to merging hooks.
>
> Merging in ~/.arch-params is, for the most part, going to be a special
> case.   I.e., arch will have some built-in rules that know how to do
> merging ops on ~/.arch-params without using `patch(1)' at all.

You mean porting users old .arch-params into the new getup? 




-- 
James Blackwell          Try something fun: For the next 24 hours, give
Smile more!              each person you meet a compliment!

GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400