[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Dustin Sallings
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla1.2 on cygwin
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:17:03 -0800

On Mar 11, 2004, at 15:03, Miles Bader wrote:

I suppose the point was just that, for the most part, as a user using a
case-insensitive filesystem, it's your job to Not Do That (create conflicting
names that cause problems in your locally restrictive namespace).

This is obviously hard if you want to use archives created by others who won't follow that rule, and in such cases life may be hard for you, but I'm
not sure that there's really way automatic way that arch can do it.

IOW, the tool can't solve the problem.

I think the argument is whether another issue in the tool is enhancing the problem in this situation.

The primary point I'm trying to make is that I think branch names (and even category) should be considered private to archive owners. It's one thing to worry about filenames within a project, but should users of a mainstream arch really consider their private microbranch names to be filenames that can conflict with users without case sensitive filesystems at some point in the future?

I don't expect arch to deal with every problem that comes up, but in this case, it seems to me that there is a design decision that does very little but make people have to be aware of problems that their branch names might cause for other users.

Again, this thread started when another user found the layout counterintuitive (why are category, branch, and version more significant than archive in this one part of the tree?). I agree that it's counterintuitive, and also point out a problem it causes. Sure, making everyone agree on what category and branch names should look like within a project will work around the issue, but it doesn't seem like the right approach.

Dustin Sallings

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]