[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidde
From: |
Pau Aliagas |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic) |
Date: |
Fri, 3 Oct 2003 19:10:51 +0200 (CEST) |
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Miles sent a patch for cscvs a few days ago, he could send ascii armored
> patchsets in the future instead.
I think that cscvs already tries to detect renames automatically.
> Probably they won't be much bigger than a compacted regular patch + changelog
> +
> mv foo.c foo2.c at the end (again no unique-id:
> xxxxx-xxxxxx-xxxxxx-xxxxx, that's a workaround).
You are wrong with the implicit tags. They are unvaluable in large
projects. Imagine that you are reorganising a part of your tree, move
files and dirs around, edit etc. now you want to sync with mainstream.
Unless there's some kinf of tagging, be it inlined, be it explicit, you'll
easyly lose track of the files to patch.
What do I mean? What you call "strict commit" is nothing else than
explicit tagging + untagged = junk. We are saying the same thing: we need
a tag per file. You chose to add it via a command (it really goes to a
.arch_ids/file). There's people, and I count among them, that prefers
inserting the tag inside the file and forget completely about it.
Semantically, we do the same thing, but whilst you'll have to mv the tag
manually for renames, I'll just mv the file and be done. I too do have
strict commit. And, if I want, I also can use the commands to tag files.
People recommended you to use tagline instead of exlicit beacause it's a
superset of its functionality: you can do the same (tag manually or stric
commit as you like t call it) and ou can have tags in your files.
Moreover, imagine that I start feeding you a new driver for the kernel.
Probably I'd stick a tagline inside :) and you'd have to live with it.
Better let both trees be "star-mergeable". And this will happen, peopl
will start tagging their linux trees from the master one.
There's no automatic procedure for moving from one method to the other, so
that if you chose one, You'll have to stick with it (or suffer a massive
delete/add).
Please, think twice about it. If want to have a master arch tree of the
linux kernel, it would much better with taglines, even if most of the
files are explicitly tagged.
Pau
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tom Lord, 2003/10/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Bruce Stephens, 2003/10/02
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tupshin Harper, 2003/10/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tom Lord, 2003/10/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tupshin Harper, 2003/10/02
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/02
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tupshin Harper, 2003/10/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Andrea Arcangeli, 2003/10/03
- [Gnu-arch-users] taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic),
Pau Aliagas <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Charles Duffy, 2003/10/03
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Andrea Arcangeli, 2003/10/03
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Pau Aliagas, 2003/10/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Davide Libenzi, 2003/10/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Andrea Arcangeli, 2003/10/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Davide Libenzi, 2003/10/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Andrea Arcangeli, 2003/10/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Robin Farine, 2003/10/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Zack Brown, 2003/10/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Davide Libenzi, 2003/10/03