[Gnu-arch-users] Re: talk amongst yourselves: "iterated" operations over configs

[Robert Anderson]

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 22:55, Miles Bader wrote:
> Robert Anderson <address@hidden> writes:
> > > As for --config, well, I'm not yet a willing user, so I'll leave that
> > > to others, but it does seem like it would be annoying to have to keep
> > > track of the config; maybe if build-config stashed away the config name
> > > in {arch}/=current-config it could be read by --config or something...
> > 
> > I'm not sure what you mean by 'keep track of the config.'  What's to
> > keep track of?
> 
> The name of the config.
> 
> E.g., `tla build-config CONFIG' does the equivalent of
> `echo CONFIG > {arch}/=config'.  And then `tla update --config' reads
> {arch}/=config to get the config name instead of having the user specify
> it.

While I see the basis for the idea, I think your stated usage (buildcfg
and then replacing some trees) is a reason not to create this state when
there are no mechanisms to enforce that state or keep track of changes
to it.

I wouldn't have any problems keeping track of the config I intend to use
with such a facility, because I tend to instantiate trees for a given
config and work on them as a unit.

You could even conceivably want to iterate over a different config from
the one you instantiated with buildcfg (say you have configs for
semi-orthogonal subprojects in a really big project.  I actually do have
this.)

Bob