[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS

From: Ethan Benson
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 14:24:14 -0800
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 02:16:21AM +1000, Damien Elmes wrote:
> Mirian Crzig Lennox <address@hidden> writes:
> > Why "gah?"  The alternative is to clutter the user's source tree with
> > magical names like "{arch}", ",," and",
> > requiring added complexity to tell them apart from actual source.
> > Directories are the canonical way to partition namespace in Unix, so
> > we may as well use them.  Let the kernel do our work for us rather
> > than requiring every utility know how to recognise junk paths from
> > source.
> >
> > This is also the rationale behind the common practice of keeping build
> > directories separate from one's source trees.
> The ,,what-changed stuff no longer appears by default in recent tla
> releases. The log filename could probably be shortened a bit so it
> doesn't mess up the directory listing wrapping, but it's not a huge
> problem. {arch} is a simple grep -v away if it's a bother.
> I remember being quite turned off by all the funnily named files when
> I first started arch. But really I couldn't care anymore - I know for
> one that having to do something like "cd project/actual-tree" where
> project/ contained {arch} etc would be far more of a pain than having
> the files sitting inside the same tree. Maybe there's some scope for
> improvements here, but it's certainly not the priority I once
> considered it. It can be convenient to have those "arch droppings" in
> easy view, and the ,, files are easy to remove.

{arch} and .arch-ids are no worse then CVS and SVN and BitKeeper all
over the place.  arch is better even since .arch-ids is hidden from
standard lists, and never bothers greps and typical finds.

the only annoyance for me is the pristine trees in {arch} which screw
up rgrep.  but ive heard tom say he wanted to kill pristine trees
anyway, so that may well solve itself.

> A tool like "cvs export" would probably a good thing though.

i would like this, i personally don't want to ship any version control
data with releases.  in any event its easy enough to remove this
without an export command.

Ethan Benson

Attachment: pgpEKoU_qZpG1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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