In-Reply-To: <20041019000526.GB11283@puritan.pcp.ath.cx>
References: <1098074588.29545.40.camel@whiskas.cashpoolcomps.com>
	<1098092294.5219.8.camel@johannes>
	<C671551A-212F-11D9-A63A-000393CFE6B8@spy.net>
	<20041018181822.GD9196@puritan.pcp.ath.cx>
	<8D7869BC-213A-11D9-A63A-000393CFE6B8@spy.net>
	<20041019000526.GB11283@puritan.pcp.ath.cx>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <CADE6E8E-216B-11D9-A63A-000393CFE6B8@spy.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dustin Sallings <dustin@spy.net>
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: File naming conventions
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:11:23 -0700
To: Nikolai Weibull <arch-users@pcppopper.org>
Cc: arch <gnu-arch-users@gnu.org>
Precedence: list
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Status: RO
Content-Length: 3917
Lines: 88

On Oct 18, 2004, at 17:05, Nikolai Weibull wrote:

>>> Precisely why you shouldn't be globbing from the shell when using
>>> tla.  That's what 'tla inventory' is for,
>
>> That's unreasonable and only answers half of the problem.
>
> No it is not.  The whole point of the inventory is precisely this
> problem.  Get used to using it.

	It's unreasonable to tell people they have to stop using tools they're 
used to in order to use this tool due to something that provides no 
value by itself.

>> 1)  I can do things with find I can't do with inventory.  I don't
>> understand how to use inventory, for that matter, and I shouldn't have
>> to just because I'm using this particular system.
>
> This is, of course, a joke, no?  How can you dismiss something that you
> don't know how to use as useless and stupid?

	I didn't say it was stupid and/or useless.  I said there are things 
one can do with find that one cannot do with inventory (based on the 
documentation of each).  But yeah, I've had inventory fail me in the 
past (I never can figure out how to get it list just untagged files 
without tagged files...tree-lint will, though).

>> It's ridiculous to require people to change the way they development
>> at that level just because {arch} matches * and contains a bunch of
>> stuff that return stuff against my greps/tags/misc tools.
>
> That is your opinion and I'm sure others will agree.  However, tla has
> been designed this way and it's kind of late to complain about stupid
> commands and directories.  Get over it.

	I complained about it a year ago when there were many fewer users 
(were you one of them?) and I have trouble believing it's ever too late 
to make an application that's mostly well-designed integrate more 
transparently with the way people work.

	For every person who says ``get over it,'' there seem to be two more 
people who come around who have to be given the justification for 
visible files they're not supposed to touch (no, they're not all on the 
list).  At what point is it really worth continuing to fight this 
battle?  The fact that something was designed some way is the absolute 
worst reason to keep it the way it is.

>> 2) Claiming a directory is off limits and the user shouldn't worry
>> about it, and then naming it DO_NOT_ENTER is just silly.  There's a
>> mechanism that exists in UNIX already for communicating to a user and
>> his tools that a directory should be ignored.
>
> It is not named DO_NOT_ENTER and it never will be, albeit that's not
> your point.  Anyway, it is named {arch} which certainly hints that this
> directory is under tla control.  You may argue, with some success, that
> it should be called .{arch} if users shouldn't be entering it, but it 
> is
> really only a matter of taste, not functionality.  It's like GNOME that
> creates Desktop and Downloads and Public directories in $HOME.  Now
> that's bad taste.  $HOME is off-limits for such stuff imo.  Yet the
> world still revolves around the sun and in some twenty years Africa
> won't have a very sizable population any more.  One can surely find 
> more
> satisfying and meaningful debates than what one directory should be
> called,

	Doesn't an argument to the effect of ``this is just the way things 
are'' work against the concept of open source?  I mean, having the vast 
majority of people who have not even heard of gnu arch enter it finding 
oddities and being told, ``that's just the way things are,'' knowing 
that there will be more complaints than people pointing out what a 
wonderful thing this {arch} directory does for them seems like it 
serves little purpose but to keep the community from growing too 
quickly.

-- 
Dustin Sallings


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/