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

[Karl O. Pinc]

On 2004.11.15 20:18 Miles Bader wrote:

> 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.

Ok.

> 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[*].

It's not like I know what I'm talking about here, but I've doubts
about your statement.  Because if it's _really_ possible to do the
job without "keeping records" then there would be no need for
explicit tagging _ever_, and arch wouldn't have it.

> [*] 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.

I'm not impressed with taglines, for reasons given in a previous email.
I'm not asking everybody to give up taglines, I'm asking everybody
who uses taglines to give up on fixing the partial commit problem.
(At least in the vaporware arch implimentation of my imagination.
Which surely has little to do with as I'm an arch newbie.)
And if you use explicit tags, you get a fix for partial commits.

Karl <address@hidden>
Free Software:  "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
                 -- Robert A. Heinlein