Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [RFC] Naming conventions

[Jan Hudec]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 15:33:30 +0300, Samium Gromoff wrote:
> At Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:51:33 +0100,
> Thomas Zander wrote:
> > 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > On Monday 15 December 2003 11:03, Samium Gromoff wrote:
> > > In the compliance with the established arch standard, it is proposed
> > > to store the deltas in $HOME/{deltas}
> > 
> > I'd throw in an additional .arch dir as that is the Unix standard.
> > Further: It might be that I misunderstood the arch naming but '{deltas}' 
> > seems wrong to me when not used as a top-level dir; so make it a ,, dir.
> > 
> > So: $HOME/.arch/,,archive-deltas
> 
> Think of it like that:
> 
> In unix we`ve had the $HOME/Mail for decades, and it was fine.
> 
> Why mail deserved a special _visible_ _top-level_ directory?
> 
> My answer is: because mail is essential, in almost every respect.

Right.

> My assertion: deltas are essential as well, in almost every respect,
>       _except_ for the people who don`t use revision control.

This, however, looks wrong. It greatly depends on what kind of deltas
you mean. The important deltas compose an archive and thus do not need
a special directory -- or rather, already have one. And the rest are
deltas downloaded from remote archives and deltas generated by diff from
existing revisions. These are not essential, since they can be easily
reconstructed.

Well, I can imagine why a "patchbox" would be useful -- there would be
patches prepared for sending somewhere. However, this should be
configureable just as library is. Note, that as arch is used more
widely, these will become less important as archive location would be
sent rather than patches.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec 
<address@hidden>