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

[Robert Collins]

On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 13:05, Colin Walters wrote:
> And that's exactly the problem - tla's verbosity and general complexity
> have so far generally seemed to keep the novices away.  That's what I
> want to fix.

So, contribute to the projects dedicated to making novice UI's: the GUI
thingy, and the hypothetical overarch. Don't teach the main UI to be
incorrectly helpful.

> > Not really. There are two common idioms I've encountered with CVS:
> > HEAD as unstable with branches being stabilised and released.
> > HEAD as stable with branches for experimentation and another set of
> > branches for releases.
> 
> I have personally never encountered a project that uses the latter
> paradigm.

Does that make it invalid? Does it make it less useful? Does it mean
no-one else has? Does it make your particular idioms 'better' ?

> I am talking about both the UI sensibility and the amount of typing -
> they are related issues.

Only to a certain degree. I'm not convinced at this point that
reductions under debate improve the UI.

> And it's not necessarily trivial to automate things in shell.  Just
> because you have a shell doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to put some
> things in the tla core.  Look at the editor example; sure, it's possible
> to script invoking an editor around tla, but it's painful and fragile.

Did I say it didn't make sense to put appropriate things in the core? I
said that this particular thing does make sense for the core (to me). I
described why it doesn't make sense. Things will make a lot more
progress if you argue the points that have been raised, not much larger,
more general points, that I agree with!

> > Nope. Minimally, create one file with one line in it.
> 
> Why should each user have to go and create a file themselves?

Who said that 'each user has to X' ?????

Really. Re read what I said. Think about it. Then consider that if a
config is a single line file you can put it on the website, or even the
contents in your tagline on your emails.

> But how does this help the user track the latest sources?  Once they do
> the 'get' it will still be a fixed version.

It will be a config, and amenable therefor to the config approach I
*already* described.

> > Huh? We want a development branch so that people develop on it? Use your
> > website. Use whatever mechanism you use to tell people where your
> > archive is to tell them what branches are around.
> 
> But I think it makes sense to have more consistency among arch-using
> projects about what is the latest development version.

Why? There are different idioms for different management styles. Tom
discusses this more later, but I think you really need to consider *why*
you want to push *your* co-operation style onto everyone. 

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://members.aardvark.net.au/lifeless/keys.txt>.

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