[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular

[Miles Bader]

Mirian Crzig Lennox <address@hidden> writes:
> If it could be possible generally to specify a config name in place of
> a revision name, that would certainly sweeten the deal.  What do you
> think about moving Arch in that direction?

I suppose there are tons of problems with that approach, but it sums up
what I don't like about configs:  that sort of indirection and
modularization is doubtless very powerful, but configs are currently a
righteous pain-in-the-ass to use.

Checking out any new package of Tom's is a big chore because of it --
maybe in Tom's development environment it's all sweet and clean (I don't
know how he has his local disk set up), but the number of non-obvious
steps required to go from `I'd like to check out Tom's new pika thing'
to having a compilable pika tree is way too high, especially compared
to non-config projects where it's just `tla get foo'.

Maybe Rob Collin's config manager or some sort of super-grab command
(though it'd be nice to have support for other operations besides a
`get' equivalent) will improve things, I don't know.

-Miles
-- 
I'm beginning to think that life is just one long Yoko Ono album; no rhyme
or reason, just a lot of incoherent shrieks and then it's over.  --Ian Wolff