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

[Joshua Haberman]

On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 10:15, Robert Anderson wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 10:05, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> > 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.

But performing simple "mv" is an inherently unreliable operation on any
tree where some of the files are explicitly tagged (out of necessity).

> 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.

Without tla, it would not be possible to generate changesets, perform
tree-lint, or execute any other operation that will use arch-tag's.

> 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".

Thinking practically, the costs also include:

* ensuring that other, less arch-savvy users add tags correctly in new
files, neither copying an arch-tag from another file nor explicitly
tagging a new source file.  arch-tag's would _really_ become useless if
some source files had taglines and others were explicitly tagged

* ensuring that other, less arch-savvy users do not accidentally corrupt
arch-tags (for example by reformatting a comment to put the comment end
on the same line as the arch-tag.

* listening to some people complain that such tags are ugly metadata and
do not belong in source code files.

Note: I am currently developing on a branch that uses tagline.  I am not
dogmatic, just thinking practically.

Josh