[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Gnu-arch-users Digest, Vol 2, Issue 51

[Pierce T . Wetter III]

> >  The next thing I noticed was that while CVS and Subversion let you
> > structure your projects and sub projects via the filesystem, arch
> > really tries to grab the whole filesystem as one unit. You can 
> > override
> > this a bit, but it involves setting up some config files.
>
> Not really. Configs are optional automation. Filesystem structure
> happens on the client.


  For us, there is a certain amount of meta information implied by the 
directory
layout of the master source set. CVS/SVL kind of support that by being 
stupid
about projects. Arch is smarter about projects, but ends up removing 
that
implied feature.

> >    While tla is ok as a low-level tool, I've observed that everyone
> > keeps trying to replace it with a driving script. That's a good
> > instinct. For one thing, I think that:
> >
> >   user--archive--task
> >
> >   is harder to read then:
> >
> >  tla make-archive --id address@hidden  --name archive
> >
> >  tla archive-setup --project hello-world --branch mainline --version 
> > 0.1
>
> You have too much time on your hands.

  Well, that was kind of snide. You're only new to a tool once. Judging 
from the
wiki, _everyone_ has problems grokking the blah--blah--blah format, why 
not
support breaking it up? It would be less confusing.

> >  Something I'd also like to see that I implied above:
> >
> > doesn't currently have any concept of a "master" repository, I think 
> > it
> > makes sense that the high-level commands would support this concept
> > that you have local archives you can commit to all the time, with a
> > remote archive you commit to less often.
>
> Impractical. It won't make sense for most people. This sort of thing
> is acutely site-specific.

 Hmmm... For most projects, it would seem to me that contributing 
changes towards
a master build would make a lot of sense.

 Pierce