[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch with 'special files'
From: |
Robert Widhopf-Fenk |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch with 'special files' |
Date: |
Mon, 4 Apr 2005 02:03:56 +0200 |
On Friday, April 1, 2005 at 02:38:56, Josh England wrote:
> Robert Widhopf-Fenk wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2005 at 12:19:39, address@hidden wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:39:04AM -0600, John Meinel wrote:
> >>
> >>>Josh England wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 11:01 +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> >>
> >>[...]
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Of course. However, I believe that full OS revision control is
> >>>>a legitimate need that Arch could be ideally suited for.
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm pretty sure all the changes I'd like can be handled with
> >>>>more (optional) metadata. I'm not against some scripting glue,
> >>>>but to do this I still need to be able to store/retrieve some
> >>>>metadata in the archive.
> >>
> >>Heh. The metadata discussion again :-)
> >>
> >>
> >>>If you are asking for user-defined meta-data, how is this
> >>>different from creating a user-defined text file listing the
> >>>metadata that you are keeping track of [...]
> >>
> >>Well, it ain't different -- and it is. If Arch provides a
> >>standardized repository for (generic) file metadata, it's gently
> >>forcing applications to agree on one mechanism.
> >
> >
> > And there would be no need to externally care for move and
> > remove of the metatdata along with a file (tla mv, tla rm),
> > which is a PITA unless you store the metadata within the
> > file.
>
> With generic metadata there will always need to be some amount of
> external care.
Sure, I am just asking for tla to handle it,
e.g. like svn does with properties.
> It seems like metadata could be conceptually broken up into two
> types. There is 'first-order' metadata, such as file permissions,
> for which arch is able to automatically apply the changes to archive
> files transparently during a get or update.
There should be only one way to access and modify.
> A single 'second-order' metadata string would basically give
> infinite flexibility in terms of metadata.
Why just a single one, because its easier to implement?
Well I might have been poisoned by subversion. Actually, in
svn I do force some file to have the "correct" line ending
by svn:eol-style and for tla I would like to mark some files
where my tla-export performs keyword expansion.
The svn-book has a section on "Why properties?" and IMHO it
makes some sense ...
Cheers Robert
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch with 'special files', Robert Widhopf-Fenk, 2005/04/01
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch with 'special files', Josh England, 2005/04/01
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch with 'special files',
Robert Widhopf-Fenk <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch with 'special files', Jan Hudec, 2005/04/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch with 'special files', tomas, 2005/04/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch with 'special files', Jan Hudec, 2005/04/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch with 'special files', Andrew Suffield, 2005/04/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch with 'special files', Cameron Patrick, 2005/04/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch with 'special files', tomas, 2005/04/06
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch with 'special files', Jan Hudec, 2005/04/06
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch with 'special files', tomas, 2005/04/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch with 'special files', Jan Hudec, 2005/04/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch with 'special files', tomas, 2005/04/10