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

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 01:24:38PM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
> 
>     > From: Dustin Sallings <address@hidden>
> 
> 
>     > 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?
> 
> I don't understand why you don't create a shell alias or tiny script
> on your path.
> 
> In essence, you're asking for feature that, whenever you run commit,
> goes and runs some other program first --- but there are lots of
> mechanisms for running two programs in a row: why do we need more?
> Or, why shouldn't _every_ program have such an option?

why should people reinvent the wheel when we can code it once for all in
tla? Inside tla it can take even less resources than an alias and it
looks much cleaner anyways. You already have the filename and it even
sounds simpler to add the command to tla than to pas the paramters
through a bash script that should parse the filename in output from the
make-log.   It's just much simpler and natural to add a fast-commit that
won't need any parameter trapping since it has all the knowledge already
to do everything in a raw.

actually the only complication would be to give the user a choice for an
editor, but I assume nobody will complain if we start with a `vi`
hardcoded in the binary (ideally it should default to vi or check some
environment variable like EDITOR or similar, but I'm fine with vi
hardcoded and we can wait further complains before doing something
smarter ;).

Andrea - If you prefer relying on open source software, check these links:
            rsync.kernel.org::pub/scm/linux/kernel/bkcvs/linux-2.[45]/
            http://www.cobite.com/cvsps/
            svn://svn.kernel.org/linux-2.[46]/trunk