Re: [Gnu-arch-users] "tla commit" generates a patch-set even if there are no changes

[Julian T. J. Midgley]

In article <address@hidden>,
Aaron Bentley  <address@hidden> wrote:
>Julian T. J. Midgley wrote:
>>>Perhaps you could explain why the defaults are unwise?  What's the harm 
>>>in an accidental empty commit, aside from a little embarassment?
>> 
>> 
>> Conversely, perhaps you could explain the benefits?  So far, I see
>> none (provided --force is available to allow the commit when it is
>> needed).
>
>The harm comes from changing the default behavior.  I have scripts that 
>I run from cron that would be broken by that change.  tla isn't very 
>user-friendly.  Scripts can make it smoother.  Let's not make tla 
>script-unfriendly too.

A little disingenuity is in danger of creeping in here.  tla with a
"--force" option to commit would be no more or less
"script-unfriendly" than it is now.  Your existing scripts would
merely need to be changed to use the option.  It would certainly be
a little more "user-friendly", however.

In arguing against the proposed change, you appear to be putting some
inconvenience to yourself (and others with similar scripts) now ahead
of the annoyance caused by a poorly chosen default to the thousands of
developers who start to use tla in the future.

Sometimes, I admit, network effects can be so great that an otherwise
sensible change cannot be made for the difficulty it would cause
elsewhere - it seems, this early in tla's life, however, that that
point hasn't yet been reached, and it would be a pity to avoid
smoothing off the odd rough edge before tla achieves the ubiquity of
CVS for the sake of avoiding inconvenience to the early adopters.

All the best,

Julian
-- 
Julian T. J. Midgley                       http://www.xenoclast.org/
Cambridge, England.
PGP: BCC7863F FP: 52D9 1750 5721 7E58 C9E1  A7D5 3027 2F2E BCC7 863F