Re: Handling BUGS.

[Marius Vollmer]

Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:

> On second thought, I completely agree that just having one set of
> files is a better idea, though if the bugs database keeps growing, we
> might need to archive older stuff at some point -- that's all I was
> really thinking of.  However there are probably much better ways to
> handle that.

When we have a mass of bugs in the data base, we'll probably also have
good tools to browse them.  Just looking at them with 'ls' wont scale,
but we don't need to do that.

> However I *am* a little hesitant about the free-form bug/file-names,
> but since I'm having trouble figuring out exactly why that worries
> me, we'll just ignore me for now :>

What worries me slightly is that in a listing like

    README
    autoconf-woes
    autoconf-woes-2
    bug-0
    bug-1
    bug-2
    no-bugs-database
    ...

it might not be apparent that all files describe bugs, not just the
"bug-*" ones.