Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch

[Bruce Stephens]

Andrea Arcangeli <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

> however I may be missing something of why what I suggested isn't
> feasible.

Clearly the semantics are straightforward---it's what just about every
other CM system requires.

It's not feasible to require that everone use the explicit tagging
method for arch right now, because (in my opinion) arch has a poor
implementation of it, and if explicit were the only method (or even
the default), everyone would notice.

(Of course, if the explicit method was implemented better, then it
*could* be the default, or if not the default, then it could provide
the underlying implementation for all other methods.  I think this is
how it ought to be done, but as Tom rightly comments, code speaks
louder than kibitzing, and I've provided none.  In principle it ought
to be easy enough, I think; the complexity is likely to be coping with
existing archives.)

[...]