So you mean it shall be possible to develop the
current Arch 1.x further, possibly with no change to
the file format but with changes in user interfaces,
and maybe possible smarter means of caching...
Most people probably don't mind seeing the .{arch}
stuff around so long as there is no need for the users
to directly access the files under that directory...
--- Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For me, I don't see new features as key, and
> Canonical is still doing
> > maintenance on baz.
>
> The only real problem I see with tla/baz is the
> performance on large trees
> and the overly fine-grained user interface. Things
> like forcing the use of
> a revlib, and being able to specify a subtree when
> committing so tla doesn't
> waste its time looking for changes in thousands of
> files when I know full
> well which files I've changed.
>
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
_______________________________________________
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/
