Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Behavior by default and configuration file

[Andy Tai]

Well, this has been discussed before. You want tla scriptable. Considering that 
Tom Lord invented
GNU Guile, which is in some ways related to the ultra-customizable Emacs, it is 
of no surprise
that there were talks of making tla scriptable.  And it is of no surprise that 
some newer SCM
systems younger than Arch are implemented in Python.  And I won't mention Tom 
and Python...

However, somehow this never materialized in a satisfactory manner... Tom 
planned a new scheme
implementation...

Anyway, this is an interesting topic.  The C-based tla is very easy to deploy 
in a network of
GNU/Linux or Unix machines, although one can argue that Python-based 
implementations should do
well in this type of environment too. Here is what I think would be two 
characteristics of a good
scripting language:

  small, easy to embed in a C host environment
  with syntax and semantics similar to C and C++ and Java

The second criteria may not be agreeable by everyone, but I think is practical 
simply due to more
people are familiar with them. It would be interesting if tla is scriptable via 
such a language.
(Just my views, of course)

anyway, this topic can be discussed in long and long threads...
  



--- Aldrik KLEBER <address@hidden> wrote:

> In order to have more flexibility, could it be possible  to of for the future 
> versions of tla a configuration file to custom all aspect of the behavior of 
> tla, (See "automatic remove the corrupt revlib revision" thread for exemple).
> 
> With a default secure settings to reassure the new user, and a full file 
> configuration in .arch-params.
> And if we want more flexibility, a configuration file in project tree wich 
> can 
> override the main configuration file.
> 
> The idea behind this is that when I see the history of tla, their was a lot 
> of 
> unuseful discussion because of an imposed behavior. The problem is that 
> whatever behavior we choose, their will always be someone who will disagree.
> 
> So, the possibility to choose is important, and can be a manner to kill 
> definitly the very few aspects that can prevent the adoption and the 
> generalization of tla.

> Aldrik
>