On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 03:11:23PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Thu, 2004-05-27 at 15:08 -0400, Cymon J. Cox wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 11:52, Cymon J. Cox wrote: > > Of course, a directory of rep.conf's should be prioritised (-able) by a > > user defined repo-id, but isnt this a separate issue? > > > > Unless I'm missing something (and I havent read the cvs code), a > > serverlist ordered by repoconfid then by repo-stanza position would still > > make more sense to the user here than the current implementation. > > Why? The current implementation is documented and fairly > straightforward. With the introduction of a repo.d dir the order in the > file becomes very muddy. > > easier to have a consistent standard that is obviously applied across > all repositories. I think I agree with Seth on this. I would probably not design it this way from scratch, but the history kinda puts me over the edge. The real technical advantage is this: With alphabetic repo sorting, there is only one layer of sorting. In contrast, sorting by priority means you have two layers of _different_ sorting: 1) repos are sorted by appearance. OK, what about conf.d files? 2) oh, they're sorted alphabetically. -Michael -- Michael D. Stenner mstenner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ECE Department, the University of Arizona 520-626-1619 1230 E. Speedway Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85721-0104 ECE 524G
