[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic

[Bruce Stephens]

Andrea Arcangeli <address@hidden> writes:

> On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 01:33:10AM +0100, Bruce Stephens wrote:
>> Charles Duffy <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>> > On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 18:26, Bruce Stephens wrote:
>> >> I presume humans only need to be involved when you're trying to import
>> >> a new tarball or something (where BitKeeper can't know how files have
>> >> been moved around).
>> >
>> > ...the example you provide being also useful as a case-in-point
>> > regarding the advantages of tags internal to the source.
>> 
>> Yes.  (I almost commented on that.)  This is a case where taglines
>> would be of use, and could be used by things other than arch.
>
> and that's again the wrong way to do it.
>
> the right way to do it, is to have the metadata exported in a standard
> format, so other SCM can import it.

I was also thinking of the case where you're taking modifications from
someone who doesn't use any kind of SCM---they just have source trees
and patches and things.  

If the information's in the source files, then there's a good chance
they'll survive almost anything.  If it's separate, then there's a
good chance it'll get lost, or mangled.

However, in the real world, only arch seems to use taglines, so there
seems little chance of persuading Linus to add them to the linux
sources, at least in the short term.

So yes, I agree.  This information is probably best in a file on its
own, and it's easy to come up with such a format---it's pretty much
what arch already uses (the ,,index files).  (Might need some
modification to cover file names with spaces in and other horrors.)

I was just pointing out that if other SCM systems used taglines, then
they'd be a real convenience---even when communicating with people who
don't use any SCM.

[...]