Re: baz format archives in tla

Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Ludovic was asking whether one of the original plans behind the change
> in the archive format was to revove the c--b--v namespace.
>
> What the hell does it have to do with tla ??? Was this archive
> originally introduced in tla or what ??
>
> (Re)read Ludovic's post to understand what I was replying to.
>   




The thread goes:

  Subject:> baz format archives in tla
 
  highlights:
 
  Miles> What's the deal with "baz format" archives in tla? [....]
    Andy> the directory structure is slightly simplifed [....]
      Miles> Right, but what effect does that have? [....]
        Andy> [should be more efficient]
          Miles> [maybe worth trying]
      Tom> [it was a lame stab at windows, compatibility breaker, and 
excuse]
  Matthieu> [no big difference.]
    Ludovic> Besides, my understanding was that the ultimate goal was to
             remove the obligation to use a `c--b--v' name space.
      Matthieu> Yes, it was the plan, and it has been abandoned.



Go back and read the messages.  Then Matthieu comes up with:

  Matthieu> Ludovic was asking whether one of the original plans
  Matthieu> behind the change in the archive format was to revove the
  Matthieu> c--b--v namespace.


I have no idea what Ludovic meant to ask other than what his question
actually says in context.

The answer is that yes, the plan was to liberalize the namespace in
tla but no, merging baz's archive format changes were not part of that
plan.   Yes, there was and (in theory) is a plan to liberalize the
namespace and no, it is not abandoned -- simply inoperable for want
of resources.

-t