[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] etla [Was: Testbed for OverArch]
From: |
Clark McGrew |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] etla [Was: Testbed for OverArch] |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:10:32 -0500 |
On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 15:39, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:16:30AM -0500, Clark McGrew wrote:
> > What are your plans for etla? Would you envision it becoming a complete
> > command line impementation of the overarch idea?
>
> Not likely. overarch has never been specified, but the impression I've
> got from talking to Tom is that it's supposed to be a higher-level
> tool.
Is it possible to specify overarch without prototype implementations? I
would doubt it. I suspect it's really hard to anticipate what is needed
without having feature requests from users based on how tla is being
used. So I think the objective of something convenient *now* exactly
coincides with overarch development. TLA is just a little bit to
unfriendly for the less computer inclined to work as a "drop in"
replacement for CVS (different functionality, same purpose), but it's
really close to being ready. However, I think it needs a nice shiny
veneer (that can be regarded as a prototype for overarch).
BTW: If anybody is offended by my choice of "oarch" as a name, I'll
change it. But, I am trying to get a discussion started so that the
requirements for a spec be explored.
> > My
> > thinking is that individual projects will want to define default
> > behaviors to match the specific development environment.
> Quite possibly, but I can't think of any way in which that relates to
> anything etla does right now. I'll worry about it if the problem ever
> arises. (Yes, this is intentionally short-sighted).
Fair enough... and a very good attitude. Unfortunately, I'm worrying
about the problem since it has arisen (if I want to use push TLA for the
UNO, JHF, or SK collaborations). Right now, I'm trying to get a way to
push project defaults (among other problems), and then will start
worrying about makeing it easier to use.
> I don't plan on providing an arbitrary extension mechanism, and I
> can't think of anything useful to do with =tagging-method offhand. A
> more intelligent way of selecting default archives has been on the
> todo list for a while, I'm planning on implementing that shortly.
I'm interested in seeing what you come up with. I'm currently thinking
about having a precious "defaults" directory in each archive
(tentatively named ++overarch) that would have a structure crudely based
on {arch}. In otherwords, atoms of information would be stored in
files.
> "Project policy" sounds like an overarch thing, though.
Doesn't it ever! I really get the impression that a some higher level
command line interface (and GUI for those who must) is the next big
thing for TLA. I think there is a lot of latent demand out there, but
most of us don't really know what we want. I can tell that tla is to
"difficult" for me to turn loose on a bunch of my collaborators, the
problem is figuring out how to simplify it. I'm certainly not an
interface expert.
Cheers,
-Clark
--
Clark McGrew Univ. at Stony Brook, Physics and Astronomy
<address@hidden> 631-632-8299
- [Gnu-arch-users] Testbed for OverArch, Clark McGrew, 2003/11/12
- [Gnu-arch-users] etla [Was: Testbed for OverArch], Andrew Suffield, 2003/11/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] etla [Was: Testbed for OverArch], Clark McGrew, 2003/11/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] etla [Was: Testbed for OverArch], Andrew Suffield, 2003/11/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] etla [Was: Testbed for OverArch],
Clark McGrew <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] etla [Was: Testbed for OverArch], Tom Lord, 2003/11/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] etla [Was: Testbed for OverArch], zander, 2003/11/15
- itla (was Re: [Gnu-arch-users] etla [Was: Testbed for OverArch]), Tom Lord, 2003/11/15
- [Gnu-arch-users] itla is not overarch, Tom Lord, 2003/11/15
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Testbed for OverArch, Jan Hudec, 2003/11/14