Re: [GNU-arch-dev] Re: [Gnu-arch-users] new documentation progress

[Tom Lord]

  The issue is that as long as you keep the directory structure the same,
  there is no difference. But if you want to move where files are stored
  (as in what I'm trying to do), you have to leave the arch-id as the
  original path-based name.

  I'm doing that, but it doesn't *feel* like the correct thing. The id
  shouldn't be caught up in a specific implementation of the arch protocol.

I'm not at all sure it isn't the correct thing.  The literal structure
of patch logs in current `tla' is isomorphic to their logical structure
and doesn't have much extra "baggage" at all.

Screw around with the physical storage of patch logs, sure -- but think
of that as virtualizing the current physical storage patterns becasue
those current patterns form a pretty good model.

That's related, in a roundabout way, to what criticisms I still reserve
about the Baz archive format:  Baz format archives, as currently defined,
discard some of the information that tla-format archives keep.  In my 
opinion, the discarded information is worth keeping.  The one saving grace
here is that the current Baz format could be extended to restore the
missing data.

-t