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

[Ethan Benson]

On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 10:57:27AM -0700, Robert Anderson wrote:
> > In a big project you want strict commits anyways.
> 
> So?  What's that got to do with anything?  You seem to have some kind of
> mental block about "strict commits" and explicit mode being conjoined
> twins.  What is that all about?
> 
> What _exactly_ do you mean by "strict commits" and how has it got
> anything at all to do with explict vs. tagline tags?

i think he means by strict commit, that untagged files are forbidden.

until recently this behavior was only possible with explicit tagging
as tagline (as i understood it from the docs) allowed untagged files
matching source regexp to be included (or perhaps not included, but to
exist).

very recently the unstagged-source directive appeared which allows you
to configure tagline to behave identically to explicit, or vise-versa.

so the `strict commits' argument is irrelevant to the tagline
vs. explicit decision at this point.

the issues that ARE relevant as i see it are as follows:

1) Does the maintainer of the archive feel adding taglines to source
   files is acceptable? some feel taglines are cruft, thats thier right,
   its thier archive.

2) Does the maintainer want to deal with checking that submitted
   patches use tagline formats acceptable to him? some people use
   deficient tagline formats.

if the maintainer answers no to 1 and/or 2, he should use explicit in his
tagging method, if he answers yes to 1 and yes or `i don't care' to 2
then he should use tagline in his tagging method, with
untagged-source=unrecognized if he wants explicit style tree-lint.

these are really the only issues that matter in tagline vs. explicit
as i see it, the rest are Red Herring.

-- 
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/

pgpS05RfY0VKi.pgp
Description: PGP signature