Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic)

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:53:11AM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Pau Aliagas wrote:
> 
> > > My question is why do I need the tag in the files if tla does everything
> > > automatically already? You acknowledge I've to tag-move explicitly
> > > anyways for the strict commit to work.
> >
> > In no way I acknowledge this, not at all. You can have "strict commit"
> > with tagline or explicit, undistinctively, if you state that
> > untagged-source = junk.
> 
> I trusted you guys and now I'm using tagline and I edit the tagging file
> to ignore the untagged-source. But I will never drop metadata in my source
> files, so the tagline super-set will never be used in my source code. Or,

I've your same feelings.

> to put it in another way, pages that holds the code to parse the tag-line:
> will be never faulted in my setup :)

I'd be curious to hear what Linus think about the matter. Maybe he will
love taglines. I currently doubt but mine is only a very wild guess.

I'm unsure what's so bad about being fully strict and safe and executing
the move/add/delete-tag always, it's so rare that I don't really care.

I think small projects and big projects differentiate a lot here. The
simplifications that taglines provides in things like sending patches
may be worthwhile in small projects, but when you've to deal with 15000
files I'm fairly sure I don't want to risk any clash or whatever other
similar risk with taglines. Only think if you by mistake cp file.c
file.c.old and you delete file.c, then file.c.old will be commited with
taglines enabled and it'll think it's a rename, is this smart at all?

Andrea - If you prefer relying on open source software, check these links:
            rsync.kernel.org::pub/scm/linux/kernel/bkcvs/linux-2.[45]/
            http://www.cobite.com/cvsps/