Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch

[Paul Hedderly]

On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 02:25:02AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 
> > Explicit tagging is by far the best choice.

Noooo use tagline - as it defaults to explicit when there aren't
taglines.

> Yes.
> 
> I also would like a way to *enforce* it, I would like that the commit
> would ignore everything without a tag (maybe it just work that way, so

Edit the {arch}/=tagging-method file. There are regexs there that help
arch define what is treasured source code, what is junk (and ignored),
what is unkown etc. Very easy to make it do what you want it to.

> explicit tagging there is no way to know what is supposed to go in or
> not, so the beahviour I experienced is accetable with names, but with
> explicit tagging turned on, then people is supposed to do
> renames/additions/removal with metadata update, and as such we can be
> strict. I like being strict. With a tree like the kernel with that many

Even better - if we start adding taglines (unique, unchanging tags) such
as:

/*
 * arch-tag: DO_NOT_CHANGE_b85434bac70c3f186e66c110805ec317
  */

then we can move those files with impunity. Arch will keep the history,
and be able to continue to patch it from other archives.

Ideally we would go and create a new base kernel archive.... with a tagline
in every file as it appears in 'history'.

I'm half tempted to try and do this actually...

> One last issue, is there a way to give a symbolic tag to files? The way
> I understood it, there isn't and  I've to create a second branch and tag
> to the previous branch. Is that correct?

If I understand you... then you're correct. Your looking through CVS
glasses. In the arch world branches are cheap and easy, so use them.

> In cvs people tends to use tags for important events like releases,
> and losing them during the conversion would be bad. Now the night hack

Branch.

> didn't care about tags at all, I wonder if there's a way to retain the
> tags. I guess the simplest way would be to be able to tell the converter

Branch... :O)

> from cvs to arch, to only merge only from tag1 to tag2, and then you do
> the next branch by hand and you merge tag2 to HEAD into it. That should
> be good enough for most purposes. And with arch we can create a branch
> with a more recent version number instead of the tag. BTW, is there any
> difference between creating a branch with a different name, or with a
> differen version number? The way I understood it arch doesn't care about
> the name, it only cares on what's inside the directory, so I could still
> tag by name by creating a branch with a different name and same version,
> if I want to.

Yep.

The Category and Branch are just for you to organise your archives
nicely. Even the Version isn't really used much - except to get the
latest version of Cat--Branch if you don't specifiy a version.

> thank you very much!

Really looking forward to the day Linus and co' are converted to the
Open Source way :O)

--
Paul