On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 07:32:54PM -0400, Aaron Bentley wrote:
Robert Collins wrote:
the working changeset should always have a unique name. If it's being
kept it should:
move an existing one out of the way.
move the working into the final position.
rm -rf the old one.
Why would we want such destructive behavior? If the user selects a
filename, use that, but barf if something named that already exists. If
it's an automatic filename, tla should pick one that doesn't already exist.
I think the behaviour suggested by Rob is more in line with the way of
Arch. I know that is a mystic argument, but my vision of software design
is quite impregnated with platonician mysticism. Without an explicit
changeset name, it is reasonable to overwrite the previous "changes"
changeset.
Another command which exhibits the same behaviour is "undo". PyArch
works around the impossibility to know the name of the produced
changeset in advance by computing it itself and calling "tla undo
--output ,,undo-N". That cannot work concurrently, but that is required
to preserve the LIFO semantics of undo/redo.