[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly
From: |
Zenaan Harkness |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly |
Date: |
Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:26:19 +1000 |
> > With the "{arch} in csh" problem, the user can type a perfectly fine
> > command line manually, hit RET, and _the command will be wrong_ --
> > he'll
> > get a confusing error in response (or worse: try to use "rm -rf
> > {arch}/m*"
> > to get rid of all patch-logs beginning with "m*" in a linux source
> > tree... :-O ).
>
> I think this is an example of an arbitrary decision having an impact
> on tools that are common for a user. I mean, I got in this argument
> when I first started using it (somewhere around a year ago), and I've
> seen it come up a few more times and have heard that users start to
> really like it over time. However, I think that as the number of uses
> grows, that becomes less true.
agree
> A visible directory indicating an scm does not in any way help my day
> to day activities. I can't use it to tell whether I'm in an arch tree
> or not, as I have some pretty big arch trees I'm not always at the top
> of. I use ``tla tree-version'' to tell me not only that I'm in an arch
> tree, but which one it is.
strongly agree
> I use tcsh, and sure it expands OK when I type ``someCmd {<tab>''
> which makes things a bit easier for me, but it doesn't make me terribly
> excited that there's a meta-character in my directory tree. I think
> the fact that bash treats {} metas with and without a comma differently
> doesn't make the case any better, either.
I use bash. Very strongly agree.
> When I was a newbie, people ranted at me about how newbies drop in and
> don't consider the massive amounts of archives out there when making
> suggestions with this kind of impact. I was also assured that I'd grow
Must be considered though. But I agree that the size of arch userbase
now is massively smaller than it can potentially become.
I believe that barriers to entry, no matter how small, are significant
in their cumulative effect.
> to love { and + and , and all that. As it turns out, I do rather like
> the use of , for temporary files. I've been using it in my own scripts
> here and there to indicate a file is not a permanent product, but
> should remain here and visible. {arch} still seems to be a barrier to
> entry, though. I use arch in spite of the way things are named, and
agree
> the deep trees, and having to replace things like tar on some of my
> systems because the filenames within a patch are too long for the
> version of gnutar I have to store them.
I disagree here - it actually increases my confidence in the tools and
the developers' ability to ensure correctness, that they have decided on
_specific_versions_ of the various "low level" tools. I do sympathize
with your need to have had upgrations of some tools on your specific
platform(s), however I consider that a distribution and packaging
support issue - which should not be ignored I agree.
That said I do think that W32 platform support is a significant
priority, and I believe that the plan for tla 2.0 is to do some not
insignificant work on shortening these paths, in order to significantly
improve the Windows-ability of arch.
> If you were designing a new archive format today, would you really
> have stuff like {arch} in it and lots of duplication leading to really
> long path names that require tool upgrades? There doesn't seem to be a
> benefit here that justifies the trouble it causes.
The primary technical trouble occurs on W32 platforms. This is AFAIUI
being addressed with tla 2.0 (c/c--b/c--b--v will become c/b/v, and
possibly other mechanisms to contract the path lengths).
> Regardless, the arch community will continue to grow, as will the
> complaints. I do suspect it'd grow faster if people had less to
> complain about.
Significantly in fact, so the theory of minimizing barriers to entry
goes...
cheers
zen
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Barriers to Adoption: exponential userbase size increases, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Barriers to Adoption: exponential userbase size increases, Zenaan Harkness, 2004/10/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Barriers to Adoption: exponential userbase size increases, Adrian Irving-Beer, 2004/10/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: newbies should neither be seen nor heard, Stig Brautaset, 2004/10/17
- [Gnu-arch-users] arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly, Mikhael Goikhman, 2004/10/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly, Miles Bader, 2004/10/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly, Mikhael Goikhman, 2004/10/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly, Miles Bader, 2004/10/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly, Mikhael Goikhman, 2004/10/17
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly, Miles Bader, 2004/10/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly, Dustin Sallings, 2004/10/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly,
Zenaan Harkness <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2004/10/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly, Zenaan Harkness, 2004/10/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly, David Allouche, 2004/10/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly, Mikhael Goikhman, 2004/10/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly, Zenaan Harkness, 2004/10/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly, Zenaan Harkness, 2004/10/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly, Adrian Irving-Beer, 2004/10/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly, Mikhael Goikhman, 2004/10/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly, Adrian Irving-Beer, 2004/10/18
- [Gnu-arch-users] filename issues (was Re: [...] naming scheme is shell unfriendly), Thomas Lord, 2004/10/18