Re: [Gnu-arch-users] branching in shell arch vs. tla question

[Tom Lord]

    > From: ""Angles" Puglisi" <address@hidden>

    > Back in the day with shell "arch", commit --continuation did not
    > work

Not so.  It worked perfectly well but was of limited utility and
tended to confuse people.


    > so we had to use a hack were we did an "arch get" of the
    > revision we wanted to make a new branch out of, then created the
    > full name for the branch and imported.  

Again, not quite accurate.  There were some (in)convenience commands
along those lines; the option to use `commit --continuation' that way
and so forth -- but it wasn't that you had to do things that way
because something else didn't work.  At least if I'm taking your
meaning correctly.


    > With further tricks such as a trivial replay between these
    > branches, they got "patch log aware" of each other and we could
    > then star-merge between them.

I _guess_ you're talking about join-branch which is, indeed, needed
less frequently than "back in the day".

    > Now, with tla, the preferred branch method is "tag", the only example of 
tag
    > used to make a branch in the tutorial is for "Alice" making a branch of a
    > non-local archive. I'm using only local archives and local working dirs, 
and I
    > want to make a branch and have a whole tree working directory to play 
with and
    > commit to said branch. 

Why not do that in two steps (two revisions)?  `tag', then `get' the
revision that `tag' created, then commit the changes you want?

-t