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

[Robert Anderson]

On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 10:05, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 01:19, Robert Collins wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 18:09, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > > Definitely not that.  Mixed mode operation (some files explicitly
> > > tagged, others containing taglines) is probably a bad idea.
> > 
> > Huh? Thats precisely what 'tagline' as the tagging method provides. (And
> > its necessary to have explicit tags in some cases: binary files with no
> > provision for text hunks; Makefile.in's generated from Makefile.am's...
> > )
> 
> I begin to wonder if the benefits of "tagline" are significantly reduced
> by the fact that you have to keep track of which files are explicitly
> tagged when moving files and "tla mv" them.
> 
> Now that "tla mv" is as capable as mv(1) (when did this happen?) I no
> longer find tagline quite as compelling:
> 
> * Why is the "benefit" of not having to type "tla " before mv's in the
> project tree worth the cost of adding "arch-tag" to every file?

1) Typing at a command line is only one way to move files.  graphical
file managers and scripts that haven't parameterized "mv" (and who does
that?) are two examples.

2) It may be quite common for people to work with arch controlled trees
who do not _have_ tla, and therefore typing it won't be very helpful.

On the flip side, the "cost" is basically zero with a decent editor.  I
add taglines with fewer keystrokes than it takes to type "tla add".

Bob