[Top][All Lists]

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

[Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion

From: Aaron Bentley
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:39:20 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4

Miles Bader wrote:

Aaron Bentley <address@hidden> writes:

changing to a representation that used a single file per directory
to hold explicit tags would improve things quite a bit.  However
there doesn't appear to be any rush to change the implementation.

Archives contain the paths of those .id files. We can't change the representation of explicit without
a) breaking archive compatibility or
b) layering an alternate namespace on top of the filesystem.

It doesn't have to break the old reprensetation -- just add an alternate
representation for the same tag namespace, but don't get rid of the code
implement the old representation.

Possible, but personally, I think it'd be borrowing trouble. You'd have to make sure that the two systems couldn't conflict, and you'd have to do up to twice as many checks. Plus, there's always a small chance that it will be incompatible with some existing packages that use explicit. I'd rather introduce a "super-explicit" tagging method and be done with it.

Of course because archives containing a new representation won't be
usable by old versions of tla, a new archive-version would have to be

Okay, so we agree that this would be breaking compatibility?

[I guess you could also make some sort of compatibility hack that uses
the new representation in project-trees, but then converts it to the old
many-files representation in changesets -- but that seems much too
That was "b) layering an alternate namespace. . .".  :-)


reply via email to

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