Received: from spf5.us4.outblaze.com (spf5.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.27]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9SGnF9F007231 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:49:16 GMT Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [199.232.76.165]) by spf5.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BEBA76F75 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:49:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CNDaQ-0001wp-OA for migo@homemail.com; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:57:18 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CNDa7-0001wY-Kw for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:56:59 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CNDa6-0001w9-Oh for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:56:59 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CNDa6-0001w6-L9 for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400 Received: from [205.209.84.46] (helo=jasper.andrew.wilcox.name) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CNDRx-0006Iz-Gc for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:48:33 -0400 Received: from root by jasper.andrew.wilcox.name with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CNDRr-0000Ef-00 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:48:27 -0400 To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org From: Andrew Wilcox Message-Id: Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Newbie confusion "illegal revision name" X-BeenThere: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: a discussion list for all things arch-ish List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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: 1804 Lines: 53 Aaron Bentley wrote: > I don't understand why you prefer an error message to having it just > work. "tla changes patch-3" is a much more convenient way of expressing > the command, and its intent is quite clear. Your suggestion that tla be enhanced to do what I wanted was so obviously wonderful that I neglected to say anything. My apologies. Yes, to implement "tla changes patch-3" is a wonderful idea. Zenaan Harkness wrote: > he's implying (AIUI) "short of having a solution/patch available > now, the error message would be better changed" Yes. Yet I don't think it is either/or. Even if Aaron's wonderful suggestion is implemented, I will still be able to enter a invalid revision name. If the error message were changed to something that I would have understood, that would be a significant improvement to my new user experience. As a new user, I read the tutorial, look at the on-line help, read the wiki, and then try some things. As I try things, I will get error messages, and whether I understand them makes an important difference to how quickly I can climb the learning curve. Aaron Bentley suggested: > The corrected version would be "not a valid revision name", which > isn't very different from "illegal revision name". Sometimes small differences can make a big difference in the user experience. I judge that if -- in that moment of being a new user, knowing what I knew then -- tla had printed "not a valid revision name", there is a 50% chance that I would have understood what was wrong and avoided an hour of fustration. Thank you, Andrew Wilcox _______________________________________________ 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/