On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:40 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> wrote:
> On 09/22/2014 12:13 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > > Yup. So let's say we can agree to hide this behaviour at the repos > layer. Then we face the decision of what to do with the FS layer: > > > > * make FS layer consistently version no-ops > > -- a lot of work at FS layer > > -- some work at repos layer > > > > * make FS layer consistently not version no-ops > > -- some work at FS layer > > -- no work at repos layer > > > > * leave FS layer as it is, partially implemented > > -- no work at FS layer > > -- some work at repos layer > > > > Which approach would you favour, and why? > > "make FS layer consistently not version no-ops" stands in opposition to > the historical intent for the FS layer. The other two options are fine > with me, though I confess that at this stage of the game, trying to > retroactively consistify the FS layer's behavior without a driving > use-case ... Right. I've kind of lost the use-case this whole thread is suggesting we "solve", and how the 14+ year behavior somehow interferes with that. -g
