[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.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]