Re: Tagline tagging failings -- Was: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla mv gets me an error next commit

[Miles Bader]

"Karl O. Pinc" <address@hidden> writes:
>> It has nothing to do with tagline vs. explicit tagging; neither offers
>> any particular advantage in this matter.
>
> Explicit tagging means that you must use 'tla mv', 'tla add', etc.
> That means tla can keep what moved where in the tree, which is
> presumeably much easier to coordinate with respect to concurrency and
> possibly cheaper to search when looking for "other halves" of moves.

tla (unlike, say, bk) _doesn't_ keep track of `tla mv', `tla add', etc.,
operations; making a changeset for commit (etc) is _entirely_ based on
comparing the current state of the source tree with a previous
revision.  This is a very winning property of arch.

As I described in my earlier message, it seems perfectly possible to do
the job efficiently without any such "keeping records", and desirable to
do so, as such record-keeping has a number of fairly severe problems[*].

[*] Doesn't work with taglines, makes many operations more complex (as
    they would have to be very careful to update any "change records" to
    reflect changes they made to the tree), etc.

-miles
-- 
Run away!  Run away!