Tom Lord wrote:
Oh and ... even though "{arch}" should not be mandatory (another name
should be possible) --- um... I'm still not too down with developer's
who through fits about this rather minor issue. (I don't count your
message as a fit but as an observation that this is a point that
fit-throwers like to focus on -- sorry that you're "caught in the
middle" for a little while longer on this one (but not too long, I
hope)).
-t
My objection is not so much {arch}, it's naming your archives
{archive}. That causes far more problems in my experience, because of
the way the registration and subsequent invocations don't match up (I
forget exactly what the issue is, but cut/paste of the same lines in
bash and csh give different results. I think the {} are elided from the
recorded registration.)
Maybe your sympathies are deeper for managers who are trying to
encourage developers to use good tools, but end up losing time and
energy to what ought to be trivial issues but are in practice real "can
you come down to my office, this just isn't working" headaches.
Followed by "why do the instructions say that if it doesn't work"
followed by "I kind of prefer tools that just work according to the
instructions" followed by overheard hallway discussions of the "oh,
arch? *grimace* Yeah I tried to use that but it was really fragile and I
spent a whole day just trying to get a project checked out because of
some goofy character issues. I don't like it much. You should probably
use something else if it's less of a hassle." It's just unnecessary
when weighed against sorted ls listings or what have you. Is it
shallow, naive, and all that? Of course is it. But that's how these
things work and how impressions get formed before the real discovery can
begin.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that's the way it is.
Bob
signature.asc