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

[Colin Walters]

On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 01:43, Robert Collins wrote:

> What about just clicking on a link on the website? I mean, we're talking
> design here... 

Uh...what would clicking on a link do?  Run tla?

> As for more complicated, switching between versions like
> you suggest is more complicated in terms of side effect.

Not really any more complicated than the fact that upgrading sometimes
changes the version in configure.ac, for example.

> > But where will the config file be checked out to?
> 
> 'checked out to' ? Oh you mean for an updated revision to switch where
> the symlink pointed to. Well there is an issue there.

Exactly.  Trying to shoehorn configs into handling this just seems
wrong.

> So you're improving our lot? I don't buy that. I'd buy "my users are
> giving me grief".

Is that what you want to hear?  Because let me tell you, I've certainly
gotten it.  Not overwhelmingly so; but the certainly majority of people
I've helped learn arch have been frustrated by the requisite verbosity.

>  Or "Bug 5XXX on savannah is an end user needing hand
> holding". Or "I'm getting RSI typing in rhythmbox ad infinitum and I
> don't want to maintain a fork".  (Well, if you do that much RCS relative
> to actual coding, I'd be amazed. But the point is made I hope).

One issue is that I have to help a lot of people out with arch, and that
involves typing these commands a lot more than I ordinarily would.  So
the effect of the verbosity on me personally is magnified
proportionally.

> I really think that for both the use cases you have proposed, an
> external implementation is the right proving ground for them.

Why in the world would this go in an external implementation?  We're
talking about probably at most 50-100 lines of code.  This isn't a
complex problem, it's mostly an issue of sane defaults.

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