[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Archives vs. categories vs. versions

From: Dimitrie O. Paun
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Archives vs. categories vs. versions
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:34:54 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 09:56:11AM +1100, address@hidden wrote:
> The naming of archives seems to more based on other considerations
> such as your address@hidden (of course) representing a role you're
> fulfilling (debian maintainer, private stuff, own hobby projects)
> and the visibility (and perhaps license) of the code within,
> plus a time marking when you began it, so:
>       address@hidden
>       address@hidden
>       address@hidden
>       address@hidden

Why the time marking? I understand it's needed to work around
some performance issues, but in all honesty it looks like a
hack. Moreover, it's hard to automate. Why is it needed in to
begin with?

> For projects within a big organization you might have the 
> mainline trees in an archive named after the app, because
> that's not going to change, but otherwise I suspect it just
> hinders things.

What would it hinder? And what about large sites, say SourceForge?
What if they switch to arch? It would seem quite natural to me
to create an archive for every project:
Having the year in there would create lots of trouble and maintenance
costs going forward. Can it be avoided? And at what cost?


reply via email to

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