Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 18:07, David A. Wheeler wrote:

> There are some things I didn't see:
> * Is anyone currently working on automated caching?

Yes.

> * Is it even slightly plausible to change the default
>   filename/tagname conventions so arch will
>   work more easily with common tools (e.g., vi/vim, more, csh,
>   bash, Windows (it doesn't handle long names well))?
>   Conventions are so arbitrary, yet the ones arch uses
>   seem designed to cause unnecessary problems.

Please enlarge on precisely what you mean here. 

> * Is there any reason that "mv" and "move" couldn't be the
>   same thing (and let mv-id or an mv flag be the id mover)?

None at all. It's UI fluff, and if you increase consistency and
orthogonality, your patch has a good chance of being accepted.

> * Has anyone thought about the "signing of signing" issue
>   (A signs A's code, B accepts it, C accepts B's, and we
>   have a chain of signatures from all 3 showing the transition)?
>   Centralized systems don't need this as much, but distributed
>   systems need more if you're going to show where code came from.

Yes and no. Yes we thought about it, and it's something we can add if
needed, but noone has shown a case actually benefiting from it.

> * Is there an intent to fix the remaining problems in the
>   native Windows port (e.g., symlinks, newline oddities)?

newline is orthogonal to arch - and best kept that way. CVS has regular
headaches with this, and I'd be loath for arch to be exposed to it. As
for symlinks, if you want them on windows, use SFU or cygwin.

> Also - has anyone tried to compare BitKeeper and Arch in detail?

AFAIK, no. But I've good reason not to touch bitkeeper myself. If
someone provides us with a clean-room spec for 'better' behaviour, we
can likely do it trivially.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

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