Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Auto-registration

[Aaron Bentley]

Robert Collins wrote:

> On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 07:49, Aaron Bentley wrote:
>  
>
> > On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 14:53, Robert Collins wrote:
> >    
>
>  
>
> > > That said, both tla grab, and config-manager's build support -nearly-
> > > this already.
> > >      
> > "tla grab" looks like The Right Way, but it's severely under-documented,
> > and also under-used.
> >
> > aba's all about doing things the easy way, not the right way.  It's
> > about solving problems now, perhaps badly, rather than waiting for a
> > Right answer.  I hope that it can serve as a testing ground for ideas,
> > as a working prototype for functionality that might eventually get into
> > tla.  But I recognize that easy access to The Wrong Answer can hinder
> > the success of The Right Answer, and I do consider that a negative.
> >
> > Reliance on a central registry has pros and cons:
> > - Uses identifiers instead of locations, so locations can vary
> >    
>
> The local archive registry (~/.arch-params/\=locations) does this
> already. This isn't a pro of a central registry.
>  
The idea that that "aba get 
address@hidden/tlasrc--local--1.2" will always work 
as long as there's a copy online somewhere is appealing to me.

> > - Gives extra power to registrars
> >    
>
> Which is an important con-sideration.
>  
Anyone abusing that power will not last long.  Several registries are 
available, and we can always choose a new default.

> Urk. Both configs and grab files are orthogonal to the management of
> source in an archive. 
In other words, actually locating and registering the archive is 
orthagonal to retrieving source from it?  I suppose so.

> I'd like to see grab deprecated for config-manager
> in fact, but jblack and I need to get some time to compare current
> notes, and ensure there are no features that will be lost etc. 
>  
When there's something available that's superior to 
tla-archive-locate/auto-get, I'll gladly remove auto-get.

Aaron