Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tagging-method explicit implementation

[Robert Anderson]

On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 04:20, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> This relates to Tom's idea of having some kind of agreed standard for
> arch-tag (presumably called something else), but it's not quite the
> same.
> 
> Those CM systems that I can remember seem to require explicit commands
> to rename, add, or delete files and directories.  Those commands
> manipulate some kind of inventory somewhere.
> 
> Why doesn't arch's explicit tagging method do this?  Why does it work
> by scattering arch droppings all over the place?

>From the implementation side, it seems like a pretty slick method to
me.  If you move a directory, all the corresponding moves "just work"
with the current method - no manual bookkeeping.  What you're proposing
- some sort of textual inventory in {arch}, I guess - would require the
implementation to go through and keep track of all of that movement and
all the implications of directory moves, etc.  Why do that when the
filesystem already does that work for you?

> It seems that Tom is *really* keen for people to use taglines, but I
> think the other CM systems have it right.  Underneath, the system
> needs to have an inventory in order to know what's there and how it
> changes.  Things like arch's names tagging method and taglines are
> just conveniences, (and tree-lint, and the regexps that configure it
> are a neat idea which other CM systems should probably copy).

I think you're being a little bit glib about dismissing these things as
"just convenience."  After all, SCM - as well as any programming tool
period - is "just convenience."

The really compelling thing about taglines or internal tags is that
source controlled file movement is then transparent to ancillary tools
(as well as the user himself.)  Plug-n-play.  No tweaking, no rewrites. 
Want to use your favorite gui file manager to move stuff around?  No
problem.

  But the
> implementation of explicit (both in explicit and tagline tagging
> methods) is just horrible---it's not just that ext2 filesystems don't
> do small files efficiently, it's that the implementation is just
> wrong.

Can you explain what is "wrong" about it?  You seem to not like the
presence of .arch-ids dirs, and are concerned about disk space.  Is that
it, or is there something else as well?

Bob