Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla import versus tla commit

[Aaron Bentley]

Anand Kumria wrote:
> So I was helping my second to last user at my work switch over to tla
> today. They did the classic:
>
> tla archive-setup
> tla init-tree
> tla add...
> tla import -s "..." [1]
> tla commit -s "initial import"

This step appears to have no purpose.

> Which I notice I've done pretty regularly on my own archives. Is there any
> reason for the difference between import and commit?

tag, commit, and import each store revisions in the archive, but they 
produce different kinds of revisions.  Import revisions differ markedly 
from simple revisions, because a simple revision is represented as a 
changeset, but an import is represented as a full tree.

> Why does commit allow
> you to commit if no changes have occurred?

tla does what you ask it to, if it can.  It doesn't try to second-guess 
you.  Empty commits, in particular, are useful for adding log messages.

When Fai detects you're doing an empty commit, it will request 
confirmation.  Other tla front-ends may do the same.

> [1]: tla import having -S and -s is a bad idea; perhaps -C,
> --create-archive would be less likely to confuse. I've typed in '-S' more
> than once.

You'd have to change tag also.  Personally, I always use vi `tla 
make-log`[1] instead of passing "-s" to commit.

Aaron
[1] Well, I run a Fai command that effectively does that.
--
Aaron Bentley
Director of Technology
Panometrics, Inc.