Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Inexact patching and directory renames

[Aaron Bentley]

David Allouche wrote:
> Together with mandating explicit ID for the tree-root (which could be
> created by init-tree) that seems a perfectly sane change.

It's possible even without adding a tree-root ID, though the biggest win 
happens when you do.

> Adding a changeset version identifier seems a good idea too, since
> people may have changesets stored in other places than archives
> (mailboxes, working directories, etc.).
>
> Care to add this on the wiki?
> http://wiki.gnuarch.org/moin.cgi/Archive_20Format_203_20Wishlist
> Or in whatever place we can keep this kind of suggestion until the taboo
> on bumping the archive version is raised.

This isn't an incompatible change.  Older versions of tla will ignore 
these additional inventory ids.  Newer versions of tla would be able to 
cope with the lack of this info.  So it's not clear to me that we need 
to wait until the next archive format.

When we do change the archive format, I'd be inclined to go with Andrew 
Suffield's proposal for changesets.

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-arch-users/2004-08/msg00184.html

Making the file structure similar to the conceptual structure should 
make it easier to do things the right way, and harder to do things the 
wrong way.

> But then, is that really necessary for me to say it? 99% of the time one
> can just append "ddaa agrees" to any of your posts and be correct.

There was absolute silence when I proposed this.  It's nice to get some 
feedback.

Aaron