Re: [Gnu-arch-users] "tla commit" generates a patch-set even if there are no changes

[Sriram Ramkrishna]

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:09:02PM -0400, James Blackwell wrote:
> As such, I really don't want to worry about today's users at the costs
> of tomorrow's users. Sure, we may break the interface today and piss off
> some of our users. Who knows. Maybe we'd even loose a few. More likely,
> those with scripts will grumble and whine that the tool has changed, fix
> their scripts. Two months later, they won't even remember that they had
> to change the script.

I whole heartedly agree.  It'd be nice to get somebody who understand user 
interfaces to help even out the interface.  Once though you have gotten
the interface set in stone, I hope that breaking the interface is subject
to some kind of change control.

> Obviously, we should go through the pains of clearing up the interface
> today. We should eliminate tripping hazards in today's interface by 
> ensuring that all commands have a consistant interface (even if that
> breaks the nine or ten scripts 'out there'). We should make sure that
> our surface lines up as straight as possible today, so that when we do
> cast our interface in concrete, we have a nice, straight path for users.
> 

As a sysadmin, it's important that tools change as little as
possible especially for revision control because my users would
write wrapper scripts around tla (they do for cvs today) because in
a large environment like mine computing environment architects they
don't have time to handhold other users on how to use a tool and
thus are wrapperized to do specific tasks.

Changing the interfaces causes unacceptable breakages that can create
a lot of problems.  You certainly don't want to encourage enterprise
or business use if you plan on creating interface design flux.

I do urge though that some kind of change control be in place
at some point in the future and that you have a structured
process in making those changes as well.  

sri