Re: ANN: CVSToys 1.0.0 - commit notification extravaganza

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On , November 11, 2002 at 00:58:54 (-0800), Kevin Turner wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: ANN: CVSToys 1.0.0 - commit notification extravaganza
>
> On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 00:13, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > > Unlike 'loginfo' alone, which will only execute the first
> > > matching command it finds, FreshCVS's flexible configuration allows for
> > > any number of actions to take place.
> > 
> > That's bogus.  CVS has always had an "ALL" keyword.
> 
> Which gives you ALL or nothing.  That doesn't handle something like
> 
> X* command1
> Xsub* command2
> 
> Y* command3
> 
> ...you don't want ALL to happen for any of commands 1, 2, or 3, but you
> do want both 1 and 2 to happen for Xsubfoo.

Oh, Come on now!  Use a little ingenuity please!  You don't even really
need any of the fancy selection of commitinfo as it stands -- it could
all have be done with a single simple wrapper script!  Adding more
complexity here is exactly the wrong thing to do.  Pass the directory
name as a parameter to the command and let it figure out what actions
need to be done.

Most of the commitinfo files I've seen either end up looking something
like this anyway:

        ^foo$           $CVSROOT/CVSROOT/log_accum -M foo-thing
        ^bar$           $CVSROOT/CVSROOT/log_accum -M bar-thing
        ^blah$          $CVSROOT/CVSROOT/log_accum -M blah-thing
        ^stupid$        $CVSROOT/CVSROOT/log_accum -M stupid-thing

The rest more sanely use just:

        DEFAULT         $CVSROOT/CVSROOT/log_accum

It really should be simply one name of a command to run:

        $CVSROOT/CVSROOT/logmaker

and be done with all the silly pattern matching.

All you've done instead is make an already very over-complicated and
complex interface much more complex and more difficult to understand.

If you really do end up with situations where someone wants to do a
whole bunch of complex pattern matching on the parameter just to use
that to select from a series of external actions then they can very
trivially add the necessary complexity to their own script!

> There's a Perspective Broker implementation for elisp, is that close
> enough?  ;)

Elisp is OK.  ;-)

-- 
                                                                Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;            <address@hidden>;           <address@hidden>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>