Re: [Gnu-arch-users] new `tla changes --diffs' behavior

[Charles Duffy]

On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 11:51, Tom Lord wrote:
>     2) what-changed --diffs > +to-review
> 
> and then I review the merge, using "+to-review" to guide the process.
> 
> In that procedure, at least, I find the new-files output very useful.
> (I don't, however, have any strong feelings about the default.  I
> wouldn't mind having to type an extra option name.)

I certainly agree that new-files output can be useful, and by no means
intended to imply that it shouldn't be available. For the bulk of my
(personal) usage, however, it's easier to leave it disabled by default.

This difference in preferred usage makes some sense to me -- when you're
operating as gatekeeper, you don't know the contents of all the new
files which have been added, so it's handy to have them in the same
place as the diffs for preexisting files to review all at once. When I'm
writing new code, however, I generally know the contents of new files
(as long as the tool reminds me that it's there); it's how modified ones
have changed that I'm really interested in.

This is perhaps one of the cases where wrappers/itla/whatever would make
a lot of sense for setting per-user defaults (or even, should the user
prefer it, being "clever" and showing new files only in the event of a
merge from someone else's archive).