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

[Robert Anderson]

On Sun, 2003-09-07 at 15:38, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> Ethan Benson <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > {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.
> 
> I agree, it's mostly the pristine trees that have caught me out.
> .arch-ids annoy me because they're the wrong way to do explicit tags;

You've made this assertion repeatedly without substantiating it.  What
is "wrong" about it?

I looked back at prior discussion, and all I found was this:

Me:
>> What you're proposing - some sort of textual inventory in {arch}, I
>> guess - would require the implementation to go through and keep
>> track of all of that movement and all the implications of directory
>> moves, etc.  Why do that when the filesystem already does that work
>> for you?

You:
>Because (while arch is still gaining mindshare) I can't justify adding
>taglines.  Because (in general) moving files (or moving directories)
>is unusual enough that I don't mind remembering to tell arch (or
>OpenCM, or subversion, or meta-cvs, or whatever).

But that's a confused response.  I was not suggesting that you add
taglines.  I'm asking why add additional "metadata" in {arch} when that
is just redundant state to be maintained that could become corrupted?

You said "how often does that happen" when I described the advantages
wrt to directory moves in particular.  First of all, I use it all the
time.  Second of all, it's completely irrelevant how often it happens. 
Either the code supports it, or it doesn't.

So, again, what is "wrong" about it?

Bob