On Wednesday, March 30, 2005 at 12:19:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:39:04AM -0600, John Meinel wrote: > > Josh England wrote: > > > > >On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 11:01 +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: > > [...] > > > >Of course. However, I believe that full OS revision control is a > > >legitimate need that Arch could be ideally suited for. > > > > > >I'm pretty sure all the changes I'd like can be handled with more > > >(optional) metadata. I'm not against some scripting glue, but to > > >do this I still need to be able to store/retrieve some metadata > > >in the archive. > > Heh. The metadata discussion again :-) > > > If you are asking for user-defined meta-data, how is this > > different from creating a user-defined text file listing the > > metadata that you are keeping track of [...] > > Well, it ain't different -- and it is. If Arch provides a > standardized repository for (generic) file metadata, it's gently > forcing applications to agree on one mechanism.
And there would be no need to externally care for move and remove of the metatdata along with a file (tla mv, tla rm), which is a PITA unless you store the metadata within the file. Bye Robert _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
