[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Dustin Sallings
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: address@hidden: Re: Re: tla1.2 on cygwin]
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:40:50 -0800

On Mar 12, 2004, at 9:00, Parker, Ron wrote:

I just don't see the advantage of long redundant path names.
They are user-visible in lines like


How about a testimony from a convert. (If you don't like it, delete it.) I can't believe I've come to appreciate Tom's position on this, but I have and my reasoning is simple. I tend to have tons of buffers open in my editor, whether I am using vim or emacs. [Yes, I have and do use both. I prefer vim for regular editing and emacs for debugging. Heresy! :-)] Since I have been working with patched and unpatched versions of tla, I have found it
necessary to plumb the depths of the {arch} and {archives} directories.
When doing so, I can immediately tell looking at the file listing in a
buffer what level of the directory structure I am viewing.

As an example, if I see the following in vim:

        " Press ? for keyboard shortcuts
        " Sorted by name (.bak,~,.o,.h,.info,.swp,.obj at end of list)
/home/rdparker/src/tla-tutorial/,,run-tutorial-archive.1508/ {archives}/examp

I think you're talking about two different things, an archive vs. a working tree. They both work a little differently. I think another way to look at the way {arch} could look (just throwing out ASCII):

{arch}/patch-logs/address@hidden/emacs--monnier--0/ patch-12

I think it's still very clear where it came from, and you can *almost* paste it into a ``tla get''

Dustin Sallings

reply via email to

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