Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch

[Dustin Sallings]

On Friday, Sep 26, 2003, at 12:16 US/Pacific, MJ Ray wrote:

> Maybe we already voted on it?  Did you check?

	I don't see how that could be possible since I was talking about 
voting on the default configuration value when there is currently no 
configuration value.

> We didn't, but we could have.  In any case, "design by committee" is 
> probably not a good thing to advocate here.  If you think that it 
> really is a make or break decision, you know where to put the fork.  
> If it isn't, then please let the current interface stay instead of 
> trying to impose some other tool's face onto it.

	I was suggesting providing three options and have a committee choose 
the default.

> For what it's worth, I hate the "start an editor" behaviour of CVS.  
> People type rubbish in as log messages when they haven't thought about 
> it.  Making it easy for them to keep writing to a log file as they go 
> along is a feature, not a bug.

	I never suggested it wasn't a good feature, and I certainly wouldn't 
want to see it go away.  However, imposing the requirement on all 
end-users because it matches your workflow I don't think is the best 
idea.

	I typically log when I'm ready to commit.  Maybe it's from my years of 
CVS training, maybe it's because I don't like to think about my 
revision control system while I'm coding, or maybe it's just because I 
commit frequently enough.  I happen to like using an editor when I 
write my log messages.  Right now, I make-log, vi the log, and commit.  
That's a three step process that doesn't need to be more than one step 
given the way I typically work.  What's wrong with making such a thing 
an option?

--
Dustin Sallings