[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit
From: |
Davide Libenzi |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit |
Date: |
Sun, 5 Oct 2003 17:24:05 -0700 (PDT) |
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Miles Bader wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 11:02:46AM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > I heard really many issues with existing SCM in the past, but not a single
> > one was complaining about the need of manually doing add/move/remove to
> > manipulate the repository. Not a single one.
>
> Complaints about `add' are pretty common with CVS (`move' not so, because CVS
> doesn't support it :-). The conversation often goes like this:
>
> `Hey your new changes don't even compile!'
>
> `What?!? I tested them massively... hold on ... grumble ...mumble ...
> Oh. (pause)
> Um, please do a cvs update, and try again.'
I worked (and I currently do) with CVS for many years, even with new hired
that are fresh to SCM concepts. If the above scenario happens once every
two months is a lot. And the solution is far from difficult. I'll ask you
a question though. Why no one of production/commercial SCM ever
implemented the magic recognition feature ? Even new bleeding edge products
like BK. You know that those marketing folks go deep digging for new
features to justify new release to have customers to pay for updates.
> > The tagging concept should/must be completely *transparent* to the
> > user, to the point that he does not even know of their existance.
>
> And yet you go on to suggest a method that's far from transparent.
> Taglines are if anything _more_ transparent than what you suggest.
Transparent here mean: The user does not have to have a clue of what a tag
is, and the SCM *must* be able to do the right thing w/out requiring him
to add stuff in his data. And, BTW, binary files are hard to tagline, and
this makes the method asymmetric from an implementation point of view.
> [But no mechanism can ever be really transparent, except perhaps for `names'
> with _every_ file considered as source (backups, objects, you name it)]
>
> > SCM *must* be able to do the right thing w/out the user having to even
> > think about tagging and whatever a tag is.
>
> Why? There's no `must.' Taglines are not perfect, but it's a _tradeoff_.
> They give recognizable advantages over `traditional' mechanisms, but they
> introduce a new concept (a rather simple new concept, but none-the-less).
> The state of the art _does_ occasionally advance, you know, and sometimes
> it's even a good thing.
Because it is simpler for the SCM is the rule is: Every file that enter
the system must have a tag inside its metadata. Again, it has never been a
problem for end users to add/mov/del from their repository. Really,
otherwise the would have implemented it. No rocket science involved here.
With an always-present and auto-generated tag inside the metadata, the SCM
is able to describe/map all operations farily easily.
> For a big project like linux, learning this new concept is very, _very_
> small price to pay.
>
> I realize you hate the idea of `metadata' polluting your files. But you
> know, if Linus were to add taglines to the kernel, I'll bet that after the
> initial massive shock to your sense of cleanliness, you wouldn't even notice
> them -- they're simply not very intrusive in reality. [I can say this
> because I've actually used them, on a multi-developer project, where most
> people are entirely clueless about arch.]
I can't talk for Linus, but he didn't have a single complain about him
having to do 'bk add'. Did you hear something ? I didn't. Operations like
add/mov/del have a so little frequency that it is really a non issue for
the user. I do not believe it is the time to try a push of Arch to lkml
yet though. There's the risk to burn it w/out a plan that maps common
Linus/big-maintainer usage pattern to Arch/derivated-tools operations.
- Davide
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Robert Anderson, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/10/07
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Miles Bader, 2003/10/07
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/10/07
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Miles Bader, 2003/10/07
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/10/09
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Miles Bader, 2003/10/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Davide Libenzi, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Miles Bader, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Ethan Benson, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit,
Davide Libenzi <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Miles Bader, 2003/10/05
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Davide Libenzi, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Tom Lord, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Robert Anderson, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Davide Libenzi, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Mark A. Flacy, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Tupshin Harper, 2003/10/06
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Mark A. Flacy, 2003/10/06
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Robert Anderson, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit, Davide Libenzi, 2003/10/06