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

[Bruce Stephens]

Robert Anderson <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

> 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.

For a directory, yes.  How often does that happen?

> 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?

Because (while arch is still gaining mindshare) I can't justify adding
taglines.  Because (in general) moving files (or moving directories)
is unusual enough that I don't mind remembering to tell arch (or
OpenCM, or subversion, or meta-cvs, or whatever).

[...]

> 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?

I don't care about disk space.  I care about the impact in changesets.
I care that if I'm trying to track sources from outside (say, CVS
sources), then for those files that I think I might want to move, I'd
better explicitly tag them first.

More generally, I care that systems in general seem to assume explicit
management of such properties, and that that doesn't seem to do them
any harm.  Arch is trying to do better (for which it deserves credit),
but it requires modifying the files to do it, and I think that that
mostly won't happen.

I think that renaming files and directories is unusual enough that a
system ought to be able to cope with it with special commands, but
without modifying files (adding taglines) or adding tag files (neither
of which is likely to be useful to any other system).

I think the support is basically there for what I think ought to be
there.  I think Tom has been too keen on taglines, and has
deemphasized the implementation for anything else.

[...]