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

[Charles Duffy]

On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 22:10 -0600, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> Explicit tags serve exactly the same _function_ as taglines, but they
> are a _different_ 'recordkeeping' implimentation.  And my point is that
> they are not interchangeable.  In some cases explicit tags are required.
> So, why not make other sort of in-tree recordkeeping required to
> support some functionality?

Karl, let me restate Miles's point:

Explicit tags still can be manipulated without tla add/rm/mv. They
couldn't be used to assist partial commits without losing this property.
It's a good property to have, and an implementation that didn't keep it
as a constraint would be quite a bit more fragile.

> And the advantage of taglines is that you can use any tool to
> manipulate the tree.

No, you can do that with explicit tags too, as long as you observe the
documented interface and modify the external tagline in .arch-ids/ as
well.

>   But in those cases when you still need
> explicit tagging you're stuck and limited to using the
> revision control tools.  

Wrong, for the reasons given above.

> You seemd to turn to arguing against any sort of
> in-tree recordkeeping,  Which struck me as impossible, and
> I could not resist saying so.

He's arguing against transactional recordkeeeping -- storing information
in the tree about how to get from its initial (as-checked-out) state to
its current (as-modified-pre-commit) state, rather than just storing
information in the tree about what its current state is.


I'm sorry not to have ended the thread where you wanted to end it -- but
it seemed to me that there were perhaps some rather substantial
misconceptions unresolved.