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

[Robert Anderson]

On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 21:54, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 19:38, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I already made the point that to be universal and to work with all sorts
> > > of languages and binary formats, you *can't* mix data with metadata. The
> > > default mode should be changed to be explicit, then if you want to leave
> > > tagline for backwards compatibility or for smaller projects that's
> > > certainly fine with me.
> >
> > Bah, I started to answer your email point by point.
> >
> > Lets just say:
> >
> > taglines are an advance over explicit, not suitable for all projects,
> > but shortly, when per dir regexs exist, they will be suitable for all
> > projects. They handle binary and textual data *just fine* (especially
> > when combined with some explicit tagging). There is little interest
> > *here* that I've observed in removing the tagline concept. I'm a
> > hardened explicit mode user BTW, so this isn't 'biased cause I like it'
> > talk.
> >
> > May I suggest:
> > * If you don't want to use taglines thats fine: they are optional.
> > * If you trust the folk here who have been using arch for more than a
> > few days ;) then please set your tagging-method to tagline (even though
> > you plan to use explicit everywhere). We aren't *ignorant*.
> > * Your arguments about pollution are quite specious, and not backed up
> > by any empirical evidence I'm aware of. You might want to review your
> > assumptions before you discard the concepts out of hand. Given that
> > users can grab source via arch, it's not resonable to handwave that
> > users 'find it worthless' when, if the tools are easy, they may well
> > find it *invaluable*.
> > * Whilst I'm positive that arch will be improved to meet kernel hackers
> > needs, dropping or even deprecating tagline would not be an improvement.
> > I think you need to really *test* tagline behaviour and facilities - for
> > example exports *through* another RCS system without data loss - before
> > dismissing them out of hand.
> 
> Personally I do see some of Andrea points. I'm using explicit tagging
> because, like Andrea, I do want to commit strictly.

What is the source of this canard?  What does "strict commits" have to
do with explicit tagging?  Please explain your thought process.

Bob