Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: [Monotone-commits-diffs] Revision c6569e455defcd6b0d889edcff0bb0fe6180a376

[Matthew A. Nicholson]

Chad Walstrom wrote:
> Richard Levitte wrote:
>
> > OK, that's an opinion.  I still maintain that a command the just adds 
> > a MT directory with contents to the designated directory will confuse 
> > most of the world (and particularly those who went in CVS school, 
> > which should be quite a lot of people).
>
>
> I actually found it quite refreshing to simply go to an existing project 
> directory, type "monotone -d $DATABASE setup", "monotone ls 
> unknown|xargs -r monotone add", and "monotone -b BRANCH commit".

You can do the xargs thing like this as well:
   monotone ls unknown | monotone add address@hidden

Also you may want to drop deleted files:
   monotone ls missing | monotone drop address@hidden

In other news, I think monotone makes a lot of sense the way it is right now 
(setup, ls unknown, ls missing...).  I don't see the need for a new command 
that simply bundles old perfectly fine commands.

> I think by "most of the world", you mean "CVS-users of the world".  Most 
> people of the world would walk through the tutorial to find out how to 
> use the tool and realize that there are multiple steps.  Most people of 
> the world would probably compare the tutorials of a couple SCM's and 
> realize that most of them use a multiple-step process to "import" new 
> source.

I agree.  It's not a bad thing to make people learn something new.  As long as 
it is well documented (and monotone is) not too many people should have a 
problem with it.  Either way, no matter what is decided, someone will have a 
problem with it.

--
Matthew A. Nicholson
Matt-Land.com