[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [GNU-arch-dev] Re: [Gnu-arch-users] new documentation progress

From: Robert Collins
Subject: Re: [GNU-arch-dev] Re: [Gnu-arch-users] new documentation progress
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 09:59:51 +1000

On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 18:51 -0500, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> Tom Lord wrote:
> >   From: John Arbash Meinel <address@hidden>
> >
> >   Why doesn't arch assign the id based on the patch log fully qualified
> >   revision?
> >
> >It *does*.  It does that too.   The same id makes sense when viewed that
> >way or when viewed as simple algebra on relative path names.
> >
> >That's the point.  Why fuss with it?
> >
> >-t
> >
> >
> The id is currently:
> A_./{arch}/c/c--b/c--b--v/a/patch-log/r
> I'm wondering why it isn't just
> A_a/c--b--v--r
> The issue is that as long as you keep the directory structure the same,
> there is no difference. But if you want to move where files are stored
> (as in what I'm trying to do), you have to leave the arch-id as the
> original path-based name.
> I'm doing that, but it doesn't *feel* like the correct thing. The id
> shouldn't be caught up in a specific implementation of the arch protocol.

Ack. However until we spec up and get some consensus on the behaviour of
id aliases, we need to preserve the id for changesets that pun patch-log
presence with file paths, and synthesis it from disk formats.


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

reply via email to

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