Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Utterly painless arch?

[Zack Brown]

On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 11:16:43AM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
>     > From: Zack Brown <address@hidden>
> 
>     >> a) screwing around with =tagging-method is, indeed, the number one
>     >>    problem newbies encounter
> 
>     > That's why the default should be something that requires no user
>     > action, but just works reasonably; and then if they want better
>     > behavior, they should be able to change it later.
> 
> What's your opinion about the user-action of `tla add'?  That's about
> all that will be required using what I've proposed and, in that
> regard, it's the same as CVS.

Sounds perfect.

>     [re the revision namespace]
> 
>     > It's just an additional inconvenience. Before anyone can start to use
>     > tla, they are forced to develop a fairly deep understanding of its
>     > organizational infrastructure. While this organization may be good, it
>     > becomes part of a tla boot-up barrier that can't be avoided.
> 
> The thing is, though, that while you may have talked to people who
> pick that issue to gripe about -- a couple of years of experience
> suggests that, really, it's not a serious barrier to adoption and does
> have plenty of benefits in practice.  So, the utility/cost of trying
> to soothe the people you've talked to (about this specific issue)
> doesn't look (at least as things stand) very large from over here.

I think fundamentally, we agree. People who need tla will (a) be able to
grok it relatively quickly, and (b) be able to adapt to its conventions.

All these "painlessness" issues could really be classified under the rubrik
"downward scalability". How *little* can a person know, and still make
effective use of tla? And what is the fewest number of commands needed to
get started on any project? And how easy is it to mop up a project, once
the user has decided not to work on it anymore?

Not all ideas for downward scalability are so good. It could be that tla
naming is exactly as it should be. But I think the *concept* of downward
scalability is one that should be considered in tla's design, especially
since it seems to have got upward scalability pretty much nailed.

Be well,
Zack

> 
> -t

-- 
Zack Brown