Re: [Gnu-arch-users] clean up tla help

[Andrew Bennetts]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:39:22AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    > All of these are minor improvments, and nothing significant.  For
>    > tla you had `tla-fork', and `tla-switch'.
> 
>    No you didn't, they were NOT part of tla.
> 
> Not directly, but then, baz was never part of tla, so your point is
> completely moot, irrelevant, and you are looking for a flame.

?

The discussion here, I thought, was comparing baz to tla.  branch and switch are
part of baz, but weren't part of tla.  Surely this is relevant?

> If I add a new option, or an alias for a old one, that is not a
> significant change.  That is the only change baz did, add some aliases

This is not true, changes beyond simple aliasing and new options were made.
I've explicitly listed some in a previous mail, as well as given you this URL:
http://wiki.gnuarch.org/BazaarVsTla which also describes changes other than
trivial tweaks to commands, and even so is not a complete list -- e.g. it
doesn't discuss the improvements to gpg signing configuration.

For that matter, new commands like "baz resolved" (and the accompanying "baz
status --conflicts") may not be terribly complicated, but in terms of improved
user experience, it's significant.

> or change the behaviour of a very small subset of options.  Such
> changes are not significant.  I find it amazing that some people here
> have such grave reading difficulties.

I find it amazing that you completely discount first-hand reports of improved
user experience (either that, or you have grave reading difficulties...).

-Andrew.