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

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Robert Anderson <address@hidden>

    >> 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.

It's more than just a philosophical concern.

One negative consequence of that approach is that `tla move' is then
required when renaming directories while, with .arch-id storage, it is
not.  

Another consequence of manifests is that mkpatch and dopatch would
have to learn how to update them, adding to the complexity of
implementing those tools.   Using the .arch-ids approach, mkpatch and
dopatch know nothing special about *.id files -- they regard them as
just ordinary files -- it is only the inventory subsystem that gives
them special interpretation.   With manifests, those tools would have
to treat the manifest specially (consider inexact patching).

Given the long history of people living with things like CVS
directories, and the relative benefits of .arch-id storage of explicit
tags, complaints about "those extra directories in my tree" seem to me
to be not very serious.

-t