[Gnu-arch-users] Re: {arch} directory

[Dustin Sallings]

On Thursday, Sep 25, 2003, at 20:34 US/Pacific, Miles Bader wrote:

> I don't think it's right to rename it -- whether it's good or bad seems
> more a matter of personal taste than anything else -- so at best, I
> think tla might support both {arch} and .arch, and allow project
> maintainers to use whichever they prefer.  Note that it's basically
> fixed for each project (i.e., it can't be a _user_ preference), because
> changesets include explicitly named references to files underneath that
> directory.

	That is very interesting that {arch} is listed in the changesets as  
much as it does.  I can understand things like changes to  
=tagging-method, but I wouldn't think paths to patches would be  
included in there.  For example:

./{arch}/docs-tla/docs-tla--devo/docs-tla--devo--1.0/address@hidden 
2003b/patch-log/patch-5

        I suppose patch history needs to go somewhere.

	Is there anything particularly bad about .arch that would bother as  
many people as are bothered by {arch}?

--
SPY                      My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub  1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <address@hidden>
|    Key fingerprint =  87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6  C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________