Re: [Monotone-devel] automate stdio, really

[Timothy Brownawell]

On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 14:25 +0200, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I just looked at today's IRC log, and saw a discussion about making a
> "automate commit" command.
> 
> Isn't this going a bit far?  Soon, we will have automate commands for
> all "normal" commands if we continue like this.  Isn't that getting a
> bit ridiculous,

No. Various frontends like to have a well-defined interface to
*everything* monotone does, and also want to be able to access this
without having to continually start new monotone instances. Making
everything available through automate (and therefore also automate
stdio) solves this.

>  not to mention the risks involved, like having to
> update the same command in two places all the time?

It should generally be possible to split a command into a "core" part
that does any actual work, and a pair of frontends that format the
results appropriately for automate or the command line.

> I dunno what the solution is.  Maybe have stdio work with non-automate
> commands as well, and having all commands be able to output stdio-
> specific data that would be more oriented for scripts, as well as
> human readable output, all depending on how the command was called.

...maybe (eventually) move the non-automate variants to a separate
executable (mtn) that calls monotone (which now only does automate) and
reformats the output for human consumption?

Tim
-- 
Free (experimental) public monotone hosting: http://mtn-host.prjek.net