Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [MERGE REQUEST] changeset translation preparatory work

[Colin Walters]

On Sat, 2004-05-29 at 23:46, Miles Bader wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 10:12:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > I'm not really suggesting it be customizable.  Instead I'm proposing to
> > default to the way the obviously vast majority of other software out
> > there names files.  Even inside arch I think it's pretty clear (from
> > .arch-inventory and .arch-ids) that the { and = are basically just
> > legacy.
> 
> No, it's not clear at all.  .arch-inventory and .arch-ids are not the same as
> {arch}.

Not the same, I agree, but they are all forms of arch metadata.

> Let me put it this way: If I was allowed to choose, with all compatibility
> problems magically solved, I'd choose {arch} over .arch (I'd do some things
> differently, I think, but not that).  

I was thinking about this a bit more, and probably the major reason one
would want {arch} over .arch is to make it more clear that you're in an
arch project tree.  We could go the Darcs route and use _arch.

> I think that subversion made a mistake
> when they chose .svn.

Why in particular?  From the mailing list archives all I see is Windows
compatibility pains.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part