Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Canonical wrapper? [was: Online book for usability]

[Jani Monoses]

> I don't get this argument, especially combined with the "network
> externalities" argument (that projects must settle on a single SCM
> because everybody needs to be on the same wavelength).  It seems to me
> that a project needs to have an "SCM guy", and that guy can choose, and
> help to maintain, the wrapper that he judges most compatible with his
> project.  If "new users", ie, the rank and file of the project whose

Many arch users are their own SCM guy.Single person projects, playing around
with tla, that kind of thing. Of course if you're in a project where you just
contribute and everything else has been set up already it's a lot
easier.Especially if some choices were made and you don't have to spend time
evaluating options (tagging method, library paths and in the case I mentioned
one of the wrapper).
Keep in mind that many of the current and proficient tla users are there
because they are on this list, ocassionally on IRC, reading/editing the wiki
from time to time etc.
 
> In other words, jblackwell is right when he says "the feature ain't
> there because you didn't contribute it."  It's just that you might not
> be contributing directly to tla, but rather to one of the wrappers.

100% agreed on the contribution aspect. I only did answer that because it
seemed to me that he suggested tla revert one file should be in core tla.

>     Jani> It would all be simpler for newcomers to have such a
>     Jani> wrapper-set bundled with tla.
> 
> But which one?  In the current state of affairs, as soon as you get
> one in, all the others may as well come in, I guess they can share a
> contrib directory.  They all have their strong points and weak points.

There are not so many and keeping them out of tree makes new ones appear.
Choice sucks in this case too because it makes you try out all the
possibilities to decide which is best. The current approaches are not so
radically different IMHO so as to say competition is good because it leads
to exploring various novel ways in wrapping tla in a scripting language.

work on two arch project each with different leaders and policies and chosen
or home grown wrappers. Fun. I don't see why bundling one of them could hurt.
If there's a better one or when itla gets there it gets replaced.

It seems to me that you and other arch veterans are trying to inflict upon all
new arch users the pains you had to take while using the first versions which
I assume had an even less friendly UI :) And it seems to me you're forgetting
that people who would use arch are not all long time unix masters with an
exaggerated fondness for pipes and DYO stuff.