On Friday, April 1, 2005 at 02:38:56, Josh England wrote: > Robert Widhopf-Fenk wrote: > > 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. > > With generic metadata there will always need to be some amount of > external care.
Sure, I am just asking for tla to handle it, e.g. like svn does with properties. > It seems like metadata could be conceptually broken up into two > types. There is 'first-order' metadata, such as file permissions, > for which arch is able to automatically apply the changes to archive > files transparently during a get or update. There should be only one way to access and modify. > A single 'second-order' metadata string would basically give > infinite flexibility in terms of metadata. Why just a single one, because its easier to implement? Well I might have been poisoned by subversion. Actually, in svn I do force some file to have the "correct" line ending by svn:eol-style and for tla I would like to mark some files where my tla-export performs keyword expansion. The svn-book has a section on "Why properties?" and IMHO it makes some sense ... Cheers 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/
