[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [MERGE REQUEST] changeset translation preparatory w

From: Adrian Irving-Beer
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [MERGE REQUEST] changeset translation preparatory work
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 11:12:28 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/

On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 11:58:43PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:

> > No, it's not clear at all.  .arch-inventory and .arch-ids are not
> > the same as {arch}.


> I was thinking about this a bit more, and probably the major reason
> one would want {arch} over .arch is to make it more clear that you're
> in an arch project tree.

I think it's more than that, too.  {arch} actually contains files a
human would want to edit (=tagging-method, wrapper macro files, pristine
trees, etc.).  Plus, yes, it's the root of a tree.  I personally prefer
being able to see it for those reasons.  (Plus there's only one.)

Stuff like CVS is the exact opposite, and (IMO) maybe should've gone the
hidden directory route.  There is no 'tree root' in CVS, and the only
time you would want to edit anything in it is if you broke CVS.  (Plus
there's so many of them.)

I think the 'configurable option' idea is okay, particularly for a
purely-local option like the {arch} name.  And the more stuff we find to
put in a per-user configuration file, the lower the overhead-to-benefit
ratio.  (And then we could remove 'funny file names' from the FAQ list.)

IMO, we should consider making this an option.  Otherwise, fixing it is
going to alienate one group of people, and leaving it alone is
apparently already alienating another group.  Forking over filenames
seems a little silly.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

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