Hi Tom, I tend to agree with your mail overall.
I do agree with Alfred as well when he notes that your (almost) one-man efforts to provide new build tools and a C library, however interesting, did not contribute to the harmonization of the GNU system. `tla' in particular seems to very loosely follow the GCS which I find a pity---likewise, I find it pitiful that it's really called `tla' instead of GNU Arch, that's again counter-harmonizing. However, I find your ``side-projects'' like `package-framework', parts of `hackerlab', `pika', `awiki', etc. interesting. But I agree with James when he says you can't fight on every front at the same time. Thomas Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In any event there's the Arch 2.0 direction, gathering dust on a shelf. > No matter how many times Matthieu calls it a "complete rewrite" that > doesn't make it true. *`revc'* is, indeed, a completely newly coded > storage manager. It does replace one part of Arch but not the rest. > It can do things like give git-like speed for commits and filename-based > tree comparisons. It rests for want of resources to port inventory and > merging features from tla. I'm not familiar with the `tla' code base but I think it'd be quite insightful if you could explain how according to you such a new storage model could be plugged in GNU Arch, technically. Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
