|
From: | Dustin Sallings |
Subject: | Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla1.2 on cygwin |
Date: | Fri, 5 Mar 2004 02:25:06 -0800 |
On Mar 3, 2004, at 7:46, Tom Lord wrote:
{arch}/emacs/emacs--cvs-trunk/emacs--cvs-trunk--0/address@hidden -2004/rather than the more "intuitive" (to me anyway){arch}/address@hidden/emacs/emacs--cvs-trunk/emacs--cvs- trunk--0/
The archive comes last, rather than first, in order to provide better locality of reference, both for interactive perusal and (to a lesser extent) for programmatic access. You'll tend to want to look at logs for multiple archives, holding the version constant, more often than you'll want to hold the archive constant and vary components of the version.
Neither of these details are justified by an unassailable rationale but then I think the design choice in these areas is fairly arbitrary, anyway. It's kind of a "just pick something and stick with it" situation.
As I've attempted to point out several times, but never got a response regarding, the way this currently works causes archive corruption when working on filesystems that are not case sensitive.
Two archives with similar branch names, but with different cases will pretty much break an archive every time.
I believe it's more intuitive to list the components in the same order they're expressed in other areas. More importantly, understand that the above justification only works when everyone always uses the same category and branch names. Of course, if that happened, then I also wouldn't have corrupt archives in the first place.
-- 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. ____________
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |