[Matthieu Moy] > Harald Meland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> The fact that it's named .arch-log-library and not .tla-log-library >>> is also intentional: Another arch client could use it. >> >> Until there actually is some agreement to use this kind of structure >> from other frontends besides xtla, I think it would make more sense if >> the directory name better reflected the fact that the structure >> currently is xtla-specific. > > I disagree here: This would mean renaming the directory if someone > else starts using it.
... while now, you're presuming that the current format of the structure is what "someone else" wants. If it's not, you could end up having to either have to a) rename it or b) add some kind of "structure version" metadata. Neither of those options sound especially attractive to me. > I don't like the idea of moving configuration directories from one > version to the other. As I understand it, .arch-log-library isn't a "configuration directory" per se; it is rather a cache of patchlogs. If I nuke my log-library, xtla will automatically re-create and -populate on demand. Hence, I don't understand why changing the name in a later release would be a problem (apart from the amount of disk space the old log library would occupy). Anyway, even if you decide to keep the IMO annoying (TAB-completion-wise) ~/.arch-log-library name, what about moving ~/.tla-bookmarks.el (which certainly is xtla specific) into a ~/.xtla/ directory? -- Harald
