[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS |
Date: |
08 Sep 2003 11:32:04 +0900 |
Mirian Crzig Lennox <address@hidden> writes:
> > So you have a nearly empty wrapper directory around _every one_ of your
> > source trees? Gah...
>
> Why "gah?" The alternative is to clutter the user's source tree with
> magical names like "{arch}", ",,what-changed.foo" and ++log.bar",
> requiring added complexity to tell them apart from actual source.
> Directories are the canonical way to partition namespace in Unix, so
> we may as well use them. Let the kernel do our work for us rather
> than requiring every utility know how to recognise junk paths from
> source.
>
> This is also the rationale behind the common practice of keeping build
> directories separate from one's source trees.
There are several reasons why I differentiate those two things (arch
clutter and build files).
(1) Arch clutter is fairly innocuous -- there's simply not very much
of it (typically much less than CVS, for instance), often just the
single {arch} subdir in the top-level directory. It doesn't
interfere with my view of the source tree.
Build files, by contrast, _do_ interfere quite a bit with viewing
the source tree, simply because there's so damn many of them (and
they typically have names that look almost like the source files,
making things even harder to parse).
(2) When there's extra arch clutter around (like ,,* or ++* files),
it's usually something I _want_ to see, because it denotes an
unusual state of the source tree. By keeping this stuff with the
source files,
Build files, again by contrast, are usually not interesting.
The .arch-ids files could be moved into {arch}, sure (though in practice
those seem to cause no problems).
As for whether you want /wrapper/{{arch},source/...} or source/{{arch},...}
there are again several reasons I dislike the wrapper approach:
(1) An extra wrapper dir is just another bit of noise to deal with --
and unlike {arch}-in-the-source-dir, it's one I _often_ have to
deal with, since I type pathnames in source trees far more often
than I do things that run afoul of {arch}.
(2) It's an annoying little inconsistency between traditional project
trees and CM'd project trees, and every little thing like that
requires brain state to keep track of and changes in tools to
account for them.
-Miles
--
I'd rather be consing.
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS, Tom Lord, 2003/09/09
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS, Miles Bader, 2003/09/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS, Jan Harkes, 2003/09/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS, Bruce Stephens, 2003/09/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS, Tom Lord, 2003/09/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS, Tom Lord, 2003/09/10
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: DARCS, Stig Brautaset, 2003/09/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: DARCS, Jan Hudec, 2003/09/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: DARCS, Bruce Stephens, 2003/09/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: DARCS, Jan Hudec, 2003/09/09
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS,
Miles Bader <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS, Bruce Stephens, 2003/09/08
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS, Miles Bader, 2003/09/08
- [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] OpenCM, Zack Brown, 2003/09/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] OpenCM, Mirian Crzig Lennox, 2003/09/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] OpenCM, Bruce Stephens, 2003/09/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] OpenCM, wave++, 2003/09/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] OpenCM, Colin Walters, 2003/09/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] OpenCM, Shlomi Fish, 2003/09/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS, Zack Brown, 2003/09/07
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: DARCS, Stig Brautaset, 2003/09/07