Re: address@hidden: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla1.2 on cygwin]

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Aaron Bentley <address@hidden>

    > Tom Lord wrote:

    > >    > From: Aaron Bentley <address@hidden>

    > >    > For archives, I can understand incompatible changes aren't
    > >    > happening any time soon.  Would changes to the revlib structure
    > >    > be permissible?

    > >Permissible?  Sure.   But why, exactly?

    > I still find myself needing to manually kill revisions in revlibs on 
    > occasion, and it's awkward to navigate those directories.  It would also 
    > reduce tla's dependency on long path names.  If a new version of the 
    > Arch format was made, we could apply those changes at the same time.


Manually?   Is `library-remove' broken?  Stray tree-lint or isig
validation or something?

Long path names -- bah -- that's orthogonal.  Stupid filesystems are
not the future --- acomodate, but do not apply hammer to one's head
for them.

-t