Re: [RFC] Plumbing-only support for storing object metadata

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Stephen R. van den Berg
Date: Monday, August 11, 2008 - 3:11 am

david@lang.hm wrote:


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!"
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [RFC] Plumbing-only support for storing object metadata, Stephen R. van den Berg, (Sun Aug 10, 4:20 am)
Re: [RFC] Plumbing-only support for storing object metadata, Stephen R. van den Berg, (Sun Aug 10, 10:57 am)
Re: [RFC] Plumbing-only support for storing object metadata, Stephen R. van den Berg, (Sun Aug 10, 1:16 pm)
Re: [RFC] Plumbing-only support for storing object metadata, Stephen R. van den Berg, (Mon Aug 11, 3:11 am)
Re: [RFC] Plumbing-only support for storing object metadata, Shawn O. Pearce, (Sun Aug 17, 11:12 pm)
Re: [RFC] Plumbing-only support for storing object metadata, Shawn O. Pearce, (Mon Aug 18, 4:18 pm)
Re: [RFC] Plumbing-only support for storing object metadata, Shawn O. Pearce, (Mon Aug 18, 4:28 pm)