Received: from spf5.us4.outblaze.com (spf5.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.27]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iAIMItFi007571 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:19:00 GMT Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [199.232.76.165]) by spf5.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94DD9771AB for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:18:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CUukk-0006BX-Be for migo@homemail.com; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:27:46 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CUukO-0006BS-Ev for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:27:24 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CUukO-0006BG-15 for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:27:24 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CUukN-0006BD-Um for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:27:23 -0500 Received: from [194.217.242.90] (helo=anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CUuad-0004Ei-Fp for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:17:19 -0500 Received: from cenderis.demon.co.uk ([62.49.17.254] helo=localhost) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1CUuac-0009Ho-9P for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:17:19 +0000 Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9CF187C618; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:17:18 +0000 (GMT) To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla References: <419ABADB.5020506@arbash-meinel.com> <419B7885.9030903@arbash-meinel.com> <419B8347.3060401@arbash-meinel.com> <419B9909.3030504@arbash-meinel.com> <2CE15774-39A8-11D9-8075-000393CFE6B8@spy.net> <20041118214742.GA17009@fencepost> From: Bruce Stephens X-Hashcash: 1:22:041118:gnu-arch-users@gnu.org::wQt2MbgnmWXEn6hO:00000000000000000000000000000000000000009XV Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:17:18 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20041118214742.GA17009@fencepost> (Miles Bader's message of "Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:47:42 -0500") Message-ID: <87oehuredt.fsf@cenderis.demon.co.uk> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-BeenThere: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: a discussion list for all things arch-ish List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Status: RO Content-Length: 1448 Lines: 37 Miles Bader writes: [...] > I think it's more of the old "learning curve vs. efficiency" > argument. Once you're used to taglines (especially within a given > source tree), they are generally nicer, but beginners seem to be > afraid of them, and I suspect much of this is because of precisely > this feeling of uncertainty -- unfortunately taglines often cannot > be used for every file in a source tree. I never felt that. I just don't want to add a tag to every file in the source tree---even if I could persuade my colleagues that it made sense (and I doubt I could). Now, if other version control systems had adopted something similar (and especially if all agreed on syntax), then there wouldn't be a problem. I think that's what Tom hoped would happen. But it doesn't seem likely. > Of course it would be better if "tla mv" and "tla rm" did `the right > thing' for taglines as well (that is, fall back to an ordinary "mv" > or "rm" for files using taglines; I don't know if they do this yet), > which would allow beginners to come up to speed more quickly. But if someone's happy using "tla mv", "tla add", "tla rm" all the time, then adding tag lines to all the files is surely a waste of time? _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/