On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Kent Tenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think there could be quite a bit of interest in moving > the shadow files to their own tree, avoiding what might > be considered 'pollution' of a tree of files in @shadow nodes. > > Edward has said that this would add a lot of complexity to Leo. > > It seems that a VCS back end for Leo might simplify the > task of arbitrary shadow file location, as well as adding > versioning capability.
Those of us old enough to remember the Groucho Marx show will know what I am talking about when I say that "you have said the magic word". I see the duck! The magic word was "tree" in "moving the shadow files to their own tree". We want a *tree* of shadow directories, not just one flat "place" to put all shadow files. This is still complicated (what happens if the user reorgs the original tree?) but it is a lot simpler than a flat repository. Still, in spite of the duck, I am leery of the complexities. But yes, I do understand that many people want this. Edward --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
