[Gnu-arch-users] recent changes / `grab' command

[Tom Lord]

Recent changes:


address@hidden
  tla
    tla--devo
      tla--devo--1.1

        patch-146    (simple changeset)
          Fri Aug 29 20:47:15 PDT 2003      Tom Lord <address@hidden>
          [small-fixes] tla buildcfg without default archive (Robin Farine)

          merges in:
            address@hidden/tla--rnf--1.1--patch-6

        patch-147    (simple changeset)
          Sat Aug 30 08:33:19 PDT 2003      Tom Lord <address@hidden>
          [small-fixes] fix tla add (Damien)

        patch-148    (simple changeset)
          Sat Aug 30 09:19:35 PDT 2003      Tom Lord <address@hidden>
          [small-fixes] first cut at grab command (markbt)

          merges in:
            address@hidden/tla--markbt--1.1--base-0
            address@hidden/tla--markbt--1.1--patch-1

        patch-149    (simple changeset)
          Sat Aug 30 09:43:07 PDT 2003      Tom Lord <address@hidden>
          [small-fixes] ARCHIVE argument to library-categories (Jason McCarty)

        patch-150    (simple changeset)
          Sat Aug 30 10:30:14 PDT 2003      Tom Lord <address@hidden>
          [small-fixes] [bug #4917] what-changed vs. no patch logs


Of those, I'd like to call people's attention to the new `grab'
command from Mark Thomas.

  grab a published revision
  usage: tla grab [options] location


It reads a file with contents like:

        Archive-Name: address@hidden
        Archive-Location: http://regexps.srparish.net/{archives}/address@hidden
        Target-Revision: tla--devo--1.1
        Target-Directory: tla

and fetches the indicated revision.

As it stands (with no offense intended, Mark), I don't think this is a 
terribly useful command.   It doesn't actually register the archive.
Parsing of the input file is case sensative.   It doesn't handle
configs.   It has some sanity checking on the Target-Directory
argument but not quite enough.

And, as it stands, it shouldn't be a command at all: a shell script
would do.

But I went ahead and merged because when the idea was first discussed, 
some good ideas came along.   It seemed like putting in a command that
needs repair is better than waiting for the repaired command first --
kind of a mini-instance of "release early...".

If people are still interested on hacking a `grab' command, speak up
on the list, and we can hash out a design for it.

-t