[Gnu-arch-users] Re: tagline robustness

[Miles Bader]

Tom Lord <address@hidden> writes:
> 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've noticed this, and wondered whether it had something to do with the
original implementation being via shell-scripts -- certainly this
property of arch has made my own little shell scripts often very easy
to write.

>     > 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.

Er, well, unlike my previous suggestion, I don't think this would hurt
anyone... :-)

E.g., I really just meant that a future arch might support both
`arch-id: "..."' and `sc-id: "..."' if `sc-id:' were the name decided
upon by some future standardization.  I doubt other SCSs are going to
want to use anything that says `arch-', but until there _is_ any kind of
`standard,' using `arch-' is safer.

I suppose if you really care about this, we could ask e.g. subversion
first, and see if they're amenable to coming up with a common name.
[That would be OK with me personally, especially since I have a plan for
emacs to use arch-tag: first anyway.]

>     > 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.

I'm not sure what you mean by this... do you just mean `be careful,' or
do you think there's e.g. a problem with coming from a gnu.org address
(in my case)?

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

Subversion and bitkeeper seem like the big things on my radard, but I
always see various other projects mentioned in `which SCS' discussions,
many of which seem to be free(ish) software.

> > * For instance, I've wondered what would happen if I tried to get
> >   arch-id: lines added to Linus's source tree
> 
> Should I be double-dog-daring you at this point?

Er, well, I'm definitely going to try (unless someone else does first).

It may be better to approach Linus privately first, just to see where he
stands, especially in the case where Larry _does_ go apeshit over the
proposal.

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

Hmmm, maybe you'd better post the `add arch-ids' patch to lkml then --
he'll never notice until it's too late... :-)

-Miles
-- 
Is it true that nothing can be known?  If so how do we know this?  -Woody Allen