[Top][All Lists]

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

[Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla

From: Miles Bader
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:40:17 +0900

John Meinel <address@hidden> writes:
> I hope this makes sense. I just wanted to say that I am using it, it
> does work, but it's somewhere that arch could do just a little bit
> better.

Yes, I do something similar (I regularly merge between Emacs and Gnus
branches, as the latter is `mostly a subset' of the former), and usually
it works very well.

I've seen discussion on this list of changing the way file
add/delete/rename works to use directory-id-tag(s) + filename(s) rather
than absolute paths, which should make many current annoying cases work

The other thing is Tom's future plans for real tree subsetting, driven
by simple rules that define how to map one tree into another one.
_That_ feature (which I'm salivating over) looks to make all this stuff
insanely painless and to greatly expand the scope of what's possible.

BTW, that's why I like having Tom spend whatever arch hacking time he
has on non-practical future stuff -- if he were doing the day to day
fixes, we'd probably _never_ get to my (mine, mine!) lovely namespace
perturbation feature... :-)

`Cars give people wonderful freedom and increase their opportunities.
 But they also destroy the environment, to an extent so drastic that
 they kill all social life' (from _A Pattern Language_)

reply via email to

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