[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: Andrea Arcangeli
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:24:52 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 12:51:31PM -0700, Dustin Sallings wrote:
> 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.

the current tla commit sounds fine, I don't think it needs changes,
breaking compatibility just for this doesn't sound worthwhile and it
clearly has a value to somebody.

adding fast-commit sounds just what we need here. People writing logs
during commit like we do, will use fast-commit instead.

> 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 

or maybe it's because you've just enough hard problems while coding to
find a way to express the matter to other developers at the same time ;).
I normally only write comments after I feel something is wroking and I'm
done. Then I can relax and ""try"" to explain stuff.

> write my log messages.  Right now, I make-log, vi the log, and commit.  

and btw the + in front of the name isn't very friendly either for bash,
but that's a minor issue and I don't really care about it, especially if
I won't see this filename anymore.

> 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?

same here.

Andrea - If you prefer relying on open source software, check these links:

reply via email to

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