gnu-arch-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gnu-arch-users] Adding 'checkouts' to tla (was: file histories)


From: Maksim Lin
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Adding 'checkouts' to tla (was: file histories)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 23:21:17 +1000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624

Let's suppose that I have an arch project tree, but that there are
SCCS directories in this tree, and all of the source files are "doubly
controlled" -- by both SCCS and arch.


Sorry to be replying to a month old email, but it got me thinking about how most of the other scm's also do this sort of thing:

cvs uses rcs
bitkeeper uses sccs
perforce uses rcs

though btw, I think per file history (as touted by bk I believe) doesn't seem like a particularly useful thing to me.
but I think adding sccs into tla is probably more of a long term thing...
Back in the present, it got me thinking, what about adding an OPTION to have check out semantics to tla?
This would I think bring a number of benefits:
- allow very quick commits, since having to 'checkout' files would provide tla with a list of all the files that have been modified, rather then scanning the whole project tree.
- allow very quick-what changed commands
- allow what changed command to work without a local prisitine tree or looking at the archive!
- allow multiple changesets with new files/dirs and renames
- maybe other stuff I cant think off at the moment... :-)

against this you would lose the ability to use shell commands to add new src files just by creating a new file (which you can't do anyways if you are using explicit or tagline tagging) or renaming/moving files with shell commands. It is an inconvience to have to check out files before editing them, but hey lots of people are used to that anyways. So anyone who for instance has a very large tree to deal with could use the option to trade-off the inconveince of having to checkout files with the benefits of very fast commits. I think this could be added fairly easily, just by making all files read-only on a "tla get", then having a "tla co" command to checkout a file(s), chmoding them to writable and addingthem to a list held in a tla config file. Likewise added new files or renaming would need to be done through "tla add" & "tla move".
So Tom does this sound feasible?

Maks.






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]