[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files |
Date: |
Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:09:10 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
> (a) obviously suffers from the problem of supporting old users, maybe
> it would need an archive rev because of that;
Yes, I'm assuming we're going to change the archive format. Maybe it can be
done in a backward compatible way, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.
> (b) suffers from the similar problem of making sure users have all needed
> components to use a customized tree and also has security worries if any
> executable scripts end up in archives.
>From a revision-control point of view, putting the diff/patch code in the
same branch as the project sounds like bad practice. I suspect security
problems would be dwarfed by more immediate concerns. E.g. it would
probably also suffer from bootstrapping problems (how do you do the first
check out?).
> and instead, (b) should just rely on a flexible but declarative
> extension mechanism.
I'd use an indirection: changesets and such would specify "diff/patch/merge"
names, and then users ~/.arch-params would map those names to actual
programs. It seems safer, more flexible, ...
> So a changeset might have a file called "=diff-patch-extensions",
> containing e.g. a list of diff/patch-extension-name / filename-regexp
> pairs:
> arch-ids .arch-ids
> unzip-first .*\.gz
> or something like that.
Since two files with the same extension might use different diff/patch
algorithm (typically if they're in different subdirectories), the changeset
format would probably be better off listing the files themselves.
A regexp table would be in order for .arch-inventory or some such in order
to determine which algo to use when building the changeset, tho.
Stefan
- [Gnu-arch-users] False "binary" files, Sergio Callegari, 2005/02/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] False "binary" files, Johannes Berg, 2005/02/10
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: False "binary" files, Matthieu Moy, 2005/02/10
- [Gnu-arch-users] [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Anand Kumria, 2005/02/11
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Aaron Bentley, 2005/02/11
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Jan Hudec, 2005/02/12
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Stefan Monnier, 2005/02/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Miles Bader, 2005/02/13
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Adrian Irving-Beer, 2005/02/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Jan Hudec, 2005/02/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Robert Collins, 2005/02/14
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Stefan Monnier, 2005/02/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, tomas, 2005/02/14
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, Stefan Monnier, 2005/02/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [BUG] Re: False "binary" files, tomas, 2005/02/15