[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Intended behaviour when updating?
From: |
Aaron Bentley |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Intended behaviour when updating? |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:36:39 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040309) |
Dirk Kuypers wrote:
On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 15:05, Aaron Bentley wrote:
And if
untagged-source precious
is set?;-)
Then tla should preserve the files in the tree, and should copy them if
it copies the tree (which is rare), but should not commit them to the
archive.
I admit that we are not quite sure here in our group, what we should set
there. For me as a non-native English speaker untagged-source precious
means "don't throw away files you recognize as source files and which
are not in the inventory right now".
If you're using explicit tagging, I'd recommend using untagged-source.
That will prevent you from committing or updating until you add ids for
new directories or files (or else classify them as non-source).
Unfortunately, it doesn't work with tagline at the moment, but that
should be fixed in tla 1.2.2.
It seems changeset application isn't quite right here; tla should never
delete a directory that contains backup or precious files.
So you agree this is a bug?
I haven't tested it, but it certainly sounds like a bug.
--
Aaron Bentley
Director of Technology
Panometrics, Inc.