[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch

From: Dustin Sallings
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:51:31 -0700

On Friday, Sep 26, 2003, at 12:16 US/Pacific, MJ Ray wrote:

Maybe we already voted on it?  Did you check?

I don't see how that could be possible since I was talking about voting on the default configuration value when there is currently no configuration value.

We didn't, but we could have. In any case, "design by committee" is probably not a good thing to advocate here. If you think that it really is a make or break decision, you know where to put the fork. If it isn't, then please let the current interface stay instead of trying to impose some other tool's face onto it.

I was suggesting providing three options and have a committee choose the default.

For what it's worth, I hate the "start an editor" behaviour of CVS. People type rubbish in as log messages when they haven't thought about it. Making it easy for them to keep writing to a log file as they go along is a feature, not a bug.

I never suggested it wasn't a good feature, and I certainly wouldn't want to see it go away. However, imposing the requirement on all end-users because it matches your workflow I don't think is the best idea.

I typically log when I'm ready to commit. Maybe it's from my years of CVS training, maybe it's because I don't like to think about my revision control system while I'm coding, or maybe it's just because I commit frequently enough. I happen to like using an editor when I write my log messages. Right now, I make-log, vi the log, and commit. That's a three step process that doesn't need to be more than one step given the way I typically work. What's wrong with making such a thing an option?

Dustin Sallings

reply via email to

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