Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Moving directories to a new branches tree-root (tree root id?)

[Aaron Bentley]

Ben Burns wrote:

> Okay, so I understand that arch does not currently look at the tree-root at 
> all.  I will argue though that it should, as well as looking at parent 
> directory id's.

That would mean you could never rename the tree root.  This is 
unacceptable for me.  I keep several copies of tla around in my home 
directory, each with a different name.

> First of all, lets assume that bigtree is a largish project that someone else 
> maintains that may contain a subproject (neatly stored in a directory) I am 
> interested in.  I may have no ability to influence the contents or 
> development of bigtree, and we can assume that development just continues on 
> that branch.

Okay, but why don't you use the whole of bigtree, and simply make 
changes to your subdir?

> Here's what I cannot do:
> I can NOT easily merge changesets from the bigtree into my subproject that 
> contain files added to directories I have moved!!  Directories and files end 
> up in the (from my perspective) wrong directory. (original path in bigtree?).

When you move the subdirectory, you move its id, too.  Files are added 
to the directory with a given id, not the directory with a given name.
But the tree root is your frame of reference.  You can't move something 
with respect to itself.

But that's beside the point; we're talking about the tree-root here, 
aren't we?  You haven't made *all* your subdirectories tree-roots, have you?
(and by
> extention, the tree-root id).
>
> Is there any reason arch couldn't work this way?

No reason.  Just make the "tree-root" a subdirectory instead.  Add a 
symlink if you need to.

Aaron

--
Aaron Bentley
Director of Technology
Panometrics, Inc.