Re: [RFC] Plumbing-only support for storing object metadata
- From
Stephen R. van den Berg <srb@cuci.nl>
- Date
- Aug 11, 2008, 10:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20080811101132.GB31686@cuci.nl>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.DEB.1.10.0808101550570.32620@asgard.lang.hm>
david@lang.hm wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>* Define a specific leading path, say ".attrs" the hierarchy to store the >> attributes information. Attributes to a file README and t/Makefile
>1. tieing the attributes to the file more directly will make it much >easier to deal with them along with the file in the non-rich checkout >(it's much easier to say README* then README .attr/README*)
I have to agree that from a practical standpoint for the user, having the file and the attribute tree right next to each other in the tree is a lot easier to manage.
So even though setting up a shadow attribute tree is cleaner because it doesn't need some kind of magic extension, it tends to clutter the management in the flat-file checkout case.
--
Sincerely,
Stephen R. van den Berg.
"Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!"