[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] "tla commit" generates a patch-set even if there ar

From: Aaron Bentley
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] "tla commit" generates a patch-set even if there are no changes
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 08:11:24 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040306)

Wazow wrote:
Aaron Bentley <address@hidden> writes:

I said "the harm comes from changing the default behavior".  That's a
script-unfriendly policy.

Your existing scripts would merely need to be changed to use the option.

Yes.  In general, that's bad.

It has always been an advantage of free software projects that they are
legacy free (contrary to many commercial projects). Some free software
project took this compatibility breaking to the extreme (gcc and glibc
among the greatest).

I don't see how that's true. gcc and glibc are implementations of established standards, as are the Linux kernel, Wine, Samba and Apache. Many gnu tools implement options as specified by POSIX, and they recently changed the meaning of -H in ls for greater standards compliance. Can you imagine what would happen if gcc changed -Wall to -Weverything?

It is nearly always the right thing to introduce
such a small inconsistency for the sake of better next release.

Yes, but what makes a "better next release" is up for debate. I submit that if you're going to break add-on tools, the value of the change must justify it.

people really hate it then this could be made optional (whether --force
is default or not).

It's already available as a non-default behavior.

People should be able to update to the latest version of tla without
breaking their existing tools.  I've found out just recently that I've
been distributing an obsolete script, because tla shifted underneath
me. I shouldn't have to test every script in my collection every time
I do a tla update.

You should.

That's a tremendous, unjustified burden. So long as tla commands do what they've always done, my scripts won't break. Should I also ensure that ls -l still works every time I apt-get a new version?

In fact at least if you ship your scripts to the public you
should have a solid bunch of tests which you run before each release.

I don't have releases. Or did you mean tla releases? Because I don't have control over which version of tla people run, and gratuitous changes just make it harder to stay compatible with all of 'em. Any test suite I did have would be considerably longer than the scripts themselves. One in particular just invokes tla changes --diff address@hidden


reply via email to

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