Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tagline robustness

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Miles Bader <address@hidden>

    > Adam Sampson <address@hidden> writes:
    > > On a tangent, all the proposals I've seen so far have "arch" in the
    > > name -- wouldn't unique tags be useful for other version control
    > > systems too, and thus be worth designing as a cross-system standard?

    > Yeah, that occured to me too, though it's probably not a pressing
    > concern; as far as I know only arch currently uses file-embedded unique
    > ids (other systems like bitkeeper seem to use the equivalent of arch's
    > `external' tags), 

The original architectural conception here is of inventory being
reasonably (and usefully) separable from the rest; mkpatch/dopatch
being similarly factorable-outable (but layered on inventory, of
course); and then patch-logs, the namespace, and the core archive
protocol being a layer on that.

I'm still there, really.   The only new thing is that I think the
archive protocol can be generalized for "smart servers" based on
namespace hacks -- still in a transport-indepdendent way.


    > and it seems easy enough to upgrade arch later to
    > support both if a `standard' name/syntax is created.

Take it easy with that stuff, please.


    > You're right though, it might make sense to approach other
    > source-control projects and ask if they want to do do this.  

Please feel free to try.  Perhaps a different "From:" line and
rhetorical style will lead to different results.


    > Taglines
    > seem like one of the easiest of arch's kewl features for others to
    > implement...  Having support in other systems would offer tangible
    > benefits for both users and for arch, and it would probably make it
    > easier to get such tags added to the canonical sources of common source
    > bases.*

Which "others" do you have in mind?   Subversion seems to embrace
intertwingling as a design philosophy.

    > [It's an obvious advantage for users because it would make importing
    > sources much smoother and make it easier to move sources between
    > different SCSs; it's an advantage for arch because it would make it
    > easier for people to try arch out, and so presumably arch's other
    > advantages would come to the fore.]

Damn straight.


    > * For instance, I've wondered what would happen if I tried to get
    >   arch-id: lines added to Linus's source tree -- assuming it was OK with
    >   Linus, would McVoy go apeshit and threaten to withdraw bitkeeper
    >   support completely ("you're supporting a competing SCS -- no bitkeeper
    >   for you!")?  If he did, what would Linus's reaction be?

Should I be double-dog-daring you at this point?


    >   OTOH, if bitkeeper were able to use embedded tags itself, it would
    >   only make sense to use a `standard' format for them, and surely even
    >   Larry could stomach that...

As far as I know, I'm killfiled by him.


-t