Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:43:18 -0600
From: "Karl O. Pinc" <kop@meme.com>
To: John A Meinel <john@arbash-meinel.com>
Subject: Re: Tagline tagging failings -- Was: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla mv gets
	me an error next commit
Message-ID: <20041115204318.S16278@mofo.meme.com>
References: <20041115151313.I8700@mofo.meme.com>
	<41995266.6060400@arbash-meinel.com>
	<20041115195312.I16278@mofo.meme.com>
	<buod5yeef5n.fsf@mctpc71.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp>
	<20041115201538.O16278@mofo.meme.com>
	<419960DF.2040603@arbash-meinel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <419960DF.2040603@arbash-meinel.com>;
	from john@arbash-meinel.com on Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 20:07:27 -0600
Cc: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org, "Karl O. Pinc" <kop@meme.com>,
        Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
Precedence: list
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: 2898
Lines: 63

On 2004.11.15 20:07 John A Meinel wrote:
> Karl O. Pinc wrote:
>> 
>> On 2004.11.15 19:49 Miles Bader wrote:
>> 
>>> "Karl O. Pinc" <kop@meme.com> writes:
>>> > I did use 'tla mv' so it ought to have all the details.
>>> > Likewise with 'tla add'.  Obviously, this won't work with the
>>> > tagline id tagging method, but that's not a reason why
>>> > explicit taggers should have to put up with these restrictions.
>>> 
>>> It has nothing to do with tagline vs. explicit tagging; neither 
>>> offers
>>> any particular advantage in this matter.
>> 
>> 
>> Explicit tagging means that you must use 'tla mv', 'tla add',
>> etc.  That means tla can keep what moved where in the tree,
>> which is presumeably much easier to coordinate with respect
>> to concurrency and possibly cheaper to search when looking
>> for "other halves" of moves.
>> 
>> That's what was in my head.

> Tagline is actually better for keeping track of things, as it is 
> guaranteed to stay with the file (hence why you don't need tla mv).
> 
> It might have a slight performance overhead, as you have to read 
> chunks from the file to see if the tag exists. But you would have to 
> read the id file as well, so there isn't a huge difference.

But, if you _must_ use tla mv, then you can keep other
information in addition to an explicit tag in the tree
-- like what moved where.  And because it's in the tree you
don't have to keep track of what moved where in what tree
in the archive.  So, when you commit you can look in the tree
to see that you've commited both halves of a move, or not.
Then you can approve or deny the move commit, and cleanup
the records if you finish the commit.  This means less overhead
(or less implimentation brainwork, bugs, etc.) when
committing parts of a tree after a move.  Which makes explicit
tagging better.

(And because I don't want to waste my precious brain cells
figuring out when I must use tla mv because the move
target cannot use tagline tags, I'm one of those who
don't use tagline tagging.  Consistency _is_ ease of use.
Drives me nuts when I use Windows and have to worry
about when it's going to think I want a click in a
text field to select the entire text/word/whatever
and when it's just going to position the cursor like
is usually does.  I constantly
have to interrupt myself and wait to see what Windows
wants to do today so I can interrupt what I want to do
with figuring out how I must proceed,
instead of just letting my fingers do the same thing
all the time.  I want click to position and click
and drag to select.  Always.)

Karl <kop@meme.com>
Free Software:  "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
                  -- Robert A. Heinlein


_______________________________________________
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/