>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 03:47:57PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>> [ On Tuesday, September 25, 2001 at 21:08:59 (+0400), Tobias Brox wrote: ]
>> > Subject: File permissions
>Kaz Kylheku recently took up my challenge to give *valid* reasons
>not to track file metadata:
> http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/info-cvs/2001-September/019853.html
>I'm semi-convinced :-)
There's nothing wrong with adding meta-data. Just remember that
metadata are data about data; that is, metadata describe data. In
a version control setting, metadata should not describe process.
We have other mechanisms, such as makefiles, that are perfectly
good at that.
On the other hand, RCS already stores a bunch of metadata: tags
(both branch and version tags), revision log commentary, per-version
state, text deltas, checkin times, and so on. All of these describe
the state of a source file at various times, but they do not specify
how to process the source file. Other things could be added that make
sense: data type and merge history are obvious examples.
There is a grey area, particularly with regard to multi-part files.
Archive files, Apple's resource forks, and various kinds of documents
that get stored in the filesystem as many files that must tracked as a
unit (e.g. NextStep) come to mind. Stuff like this can be coded into
a data type handler, which CVS doesn't have at present. But again, the
metadata describe the data, the type handler implements process. There
is a difference.
Kaz' exmaples of platform-dependent permissions, make-like rules, and
so on, describe process: What is done to the file once it's copied out
of the version control system and into the filesystem.
>--- End of forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
