[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion
From: |
Martin Pool |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:06:11 +1000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i |
On 9 Apr 2004, Colin Walters <address@hidden> wrote:
> > [and of course you can also just always `mv' always and then use a tool
> > like `tla-update-ids' before committing.]
>
> Hmmm. How does that work? How can tla-update-ids differentiate a moved
> file from a deleted one?
I think it notices that an identical file has been added under a
different name.
Move and modify within one changeset is harder, especially if you're
talking about binaries. But (a hangover from svn?) I tend to do moves
in separate changes.
> > You're gonna get occasional annoyances no matter _which_ method you use,
> > so the question is not `Which one is perfect?' (none of them are), but
> > `Which one is the least annoying?'.
>
> Totally agreed! All I'm saying is that I tried tagline and found
> explicit less annoying. I can completely understand people feeling the
> opposite though. Mainly I just didn't want newbies to get the
> impression that explicit was broken somehow.
>
> > If your tree is chock-full of binary files which you keep moving around,
> > I guess you're going to have get in the habit of using `tla mv' (or some
> > other tool), but taglines don't cramp that style. Might as well use
> > taglines anyway for their other benefits.
>
> What other benefits?
Putting them in doesn't stop you using tla mv, and it accomodates
people who do like them.
Personally I like to just move files using emacs, and if I notice
before committing that I moved an explicitly-tagged file and forgot to
move the id, then I do that then.
For many projects binary files are the exception, and also rarely get
moved.
I think I kind of like the idea of having a UUID in source anyhow, so
you can potentially match up related files even if the source history
has been lost.
--
Martin
- [Gnu-arch-users] implicit discussion, Colin Walters, 2004/04/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] implicit discussion, Matthieu Moy, 2004/04/09
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Miles Bader, 2004/04/09
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Colin Walters, 2004/04/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion,
Martin Pool <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Miles Bader, 2004/04/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Aaron Bentley, 2004/04/15
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Miles Bader, 2004/04/15
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Aaron Bentley, 2004/04/15
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Miles Bader, 2004/04/15
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Aaron Bentley, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Martin Pool, 2004/04/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Aaron Bentley, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, mbp, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: implicit discussion, Aaron Bentley, 2004/04/16