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.  

Presumably that depends on what tools you use.  My experience is the
opposite.

But regardless, this seems like at most a minor issue.


    > It would also reduce tla's dependency on long path names.  

Given the very limited set of systems for which that's an issue, I'm
interested in solutions that _don't_ perturb existing code, revlibs,
etc.


    > If a new version of the Arch format was made, we could apply
    > those changes at the same time.

But there's no good reason yet for any format changes.

-t