[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch

From: Andrea Arcangeli
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 14:28:30 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 12:56:39PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Distributing files together with their extended attributes, a resource
> fork or other ways to transparently store metadate is rather painful.
> Ask any MacOS user. 8-/

I believe it enterely depends how it's used. But certainly you're right
it can create confusion in terms of backups.

> You can either preserve the metadata, or you can make the file contents
> accessible to traditional users.  Both things at the same time don't
> work.

The idea here is that no metadata would need to be preserved except for
backups of the working dir (note: not backups of the archive where the
patchsets are stored, and the archive is the real thing that matters,
the working dir is more a temporary thing, the archive is the real

I'm not actually advocating the multiple channels for metadata in the
kernel, I was mostly making an example of how you could cleanly split
the arch metadata from the data, while at the same time to be still able
to avoid running add-tag etc...

However again, I'm fine that taglines are available too, so I only need
explicit mode to be safer (because explicit obviously it can be
implemented mathematically *safer*) and more transparent than the
tagline. Since I need to use "explicit" for the strict commit, I would
only lose the math safety guarantee by using tagline. I see only
disavantages in tagline vs explicit, if you need strict commit like I

Andrea - If you prefer relying on open source software, check these links:

reply via email to

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