[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] distinguished branch name, "clone"

From: Colin Walters
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] distinguished branch name, "clone"
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 21:05:19 -0500

On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 20:05, Robert Collins wrote:

> And? Comparing arch UI to CVS UI on the basis of branch name length
> isn't a compelling reason to say that CVS has got it right. Perhaps less
> than 10% of CVS users use completion because less than 10% of CVS users
> are more than novices?

And that's exactly the problem - tla's verbosity and general complexity
have so far generally seemed to keep the novices away.  That's what I
want to fix.

> Not really. There are two common idioms I've encountered with CVS:
> HEAD as unstable with branches being stabilised and released.
> HEAD as stable with branches for experimentation and another set of
> branches for releases.

I have personally never encountered a project that uses the latter

> Sorry, I missed something. I thought you where talking UI sensibility -
> the amount of typing is hardly an issue AFAICT. You are either working
> in a GUI - which should be aiding you, or you are working in a shell -
> which is able to automate as much as you want, trivially.

I am talking about both the UI sensibility and the amount of typing -
they are related issues.

And it's not necessarily trivial to automate things in shell.  Just
because you have a shell doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to put some
things in the tla core.  Look at the editor example; sure, it's possible
to script invoking an editor around tla, but it's painful and fragile.

> Nope. Minimally, create one file with one line in it.

Why should each user have to go and create a file themselves?

> There is a proposal around somewhere to have a default config in a
> archive. That would make it:
> tla get address@hidden/dists--mainline--0

But how does this help the user track the latest sources?  Once they do
the 'get' it will still be a fixed version.

> > How would tla grab solve this?  I don't quite understand grab.
> Think of it as a config with location placed on a website. Then the user
> just does tla grab

This has the same issue as above AFAICS.

> Huh? We want a development branch so that people develop on it? Use your
> website. Use whatever mechanism you use to tell people where your
> archive is to tell them what branches are around.

But I think it makes sense to have more consistency among arch-using
projects about what is the latest development version.

> Iteration. Go look at the examples you provided - you are iterating over
> multiple categories and branches. Definately not core to tla, and I'd
> resist it's inclusion unless it shows itself as a killer feature.

This is for the multi-clone example?  Sure - I'm not so concerned about

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

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