Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS

[Robert Anderson]

On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 02:00, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> Robert Anderson <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, 2003-09-07 at 15:38, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> I agree, it's mostly the pristine trees that have caught me out.
> >> .arch-ids annoy me because they're the wrong way to do explicit tags;
> >
> > You've made this assertion repeatedly without substantiating it.  What
> > is "wrong" about it?
> >
> > I looked back at prior discussion, and all I found was this:
> >
> > Me:
> >>> What you're proposing - some sort of textual inventory in {arch}, I
> >>> guess - would require the implementation to go through and keep
> >>> track of all of that movement and all the implications of directory
> >>> moves, etc.  Why do that when the filesystem already does that work
> >>> for you?
> >
> > You:
> >>Because (while arch is still gaining mindshare) I can't justify adding
> >>taglines.  Because (in general) moving files (or moving directories)
> >>is unusual enough that I don't mind remembering to tell arch (or
> >>OpenCM, or subversion, or meta-cvs, or whatever).
> >
> > But that's a confused response.  I was not suggesting that you add
> > taglines.  I'm asking why add additional "metadata" in {arch} when
> > that is just redundant state to be maintained that could become
> > corrupted?
> 
> It's not redundant: I'm suggesting there ought to be one place where
> the mapping between filenames and ids happens, and that place ought to
> be one or more files in {arch}, not scattered around in .arch-ids
> directories.

If you think we should have to choose the "one true way" then I'm pretty
sure we'll never agree.  So I think I understand your idea of "wrong"
now.

Bob