Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit

[Zack Brown]

On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 09:49:08AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Zack Brown <address@hidden> writes:
> > I think one of the main reasons people are so vehement about it, is because
> > the 'tagline' method can be confusing until the big payoff is discovered
> > (regular filesystem commands 'just work' etc). So there's always that sense
> > that if someone doesn't like tagline, it might be just because they didn't
> > understand it.
> 
> Actually my impression is that the reason why people are `advocating'
> taglines so hard is simply in reaction to Andrea &al continually saying
> they suck, are completely unjustified, etc.  If Andrea just said `I've
> decided to use explicit,' that would be fine, but he's chosen to do a
> lot more than that -- and much of what he's said on the issue seems
> quite confused.

I tend to ascribe that partly to Andrea's initial unfamiliarity with the
tool, and also to a language barrier. Andrea is quite a good english speaker,
but it's not his first language. I don't mean to speak for him, but people
may have interpreted his explanations as an attack on the 'tagline' feature,
while I think for the most part he was just trying to express the reasons for
his own personal preferences. It also may not have been obvious to people
when Andrea's understanding of the various ideas started to deepen. YMMV,
but hopefully people will be able to drop the whole 'tagline' vs 'explicit'
debate, and at the very least acknowledge that it's a legitimate personal
choice to make.

> 
> > But there's no reason not to use 'explicit' for the Linux kernel.
> 
> Well, there's the obvious reason: taglines have some advantages over
> explicit tags, if they're in the canonical source.
> 
> Whether they're in the canonical source or not seems like the big
> differentiator.  Whether they get _added_ to the canonical source,
> logistical and political concerns aside (Hi Larry!  Oh wait, I'm in his
> killfile...),

;-)

I think I may be there as well...

> basically seems to come down to whether or not the
> maintainer thinks they're ugly or not, and whether that outweighs their
> advantages.
> 
> Until such time as there _is_ some move by Linus to accomodate arch
> officially, explicit tags are probably not an unreasonable choice,
> though I think their inefficient implementation is a bit annoying.

That seems like the major point, I think. Right now, 'tagline' is definitely
better if for no other reason than that its implementation is better.
But that may change, especially if folks like Andrea start using
'explicit'.

> 
> Certainly taglines have additional annoying properties in this case
> (e.g. they will occasionally cause conflicts at end of the file, when
> applying a patch from external, untagged, sources).
> 
> > I think if you or others start using arch for the kernel, there might
> > one day be a movement to migrate from 'explicit' to 'taglines', and then
> > that will be difficult. But I'm sure a way will be found when the time
> > comes.
> 
> And indeed, this step will probably be necessary even if taglines are
> never used, as at some point the actual tag contents will need to be
> reconciled in some manner.

Yes. For me it's interesting to consider the whole thing from the
perspective of, "what if 'explicit' is used in the kernel," because I
don't think there's any chance Linus will start off with 'tagline'
(though he may change his mind as he gets familiar with the tool).

Be well,
Zack

> 
> -Miles
> -- 
> In New York, most people don't have cars, so if you want to kill a person, you
> have to take the subway to their house.  And sometimes on the way, the train
> is delayed and you get impatient, so you have to kill someone on the subway.
>   [George Carlin]
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
> 
> GNU arch home page:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/

-- 
Zack Brown