Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly

[Dustin Sallings]

On Oct 17, 2004, at 18:32, Miles Bader wrote:

> With the "{arch} in csh" problem, the user can type a perfectly fine
> command line manually, hit RET, and _the command will be wrong_ -- 
> he'll
> get a confusing error in response (or worse:  try to use "rm -rf 
> {arch}/m*"
> to get rid of all patch-logs beginning with "m*" in a linux source
> tree... :-O ).

	I think this is an example of an arbitrary decision having an impact 
on tools that are common for a user.  I mean, I got in this argument 
when I first started using it (somewhere around a year ago), and I've 
seen it come up a few more times and have heard that users start to 
really like it over time.  However, I think that as the number of uses 
grows, that becomes less true.

	A visible directory indicating an scm does not in any way help my day 
to day activities.  I can't use it to tell whether I'm in an arch tree 
or not, as I have some pretty big arch trees I'm not always at the top 
of.  I use ``tla tree-version'' to tell me not only that I'm in an arch 
tree, but which one it is.

	I use tcsh, and sure it expands OK when I type ``someCmd {<tab>'' 
which makes things a bit easier for me, but it doesn't make me terribly 
excited that there's a meta-character in my directory tree.  I think 
the fact that bash treats {} metas with and without a comma differently 
doesn't make the case any better, either.

	When I was a newbie, people ranted at me about how newbies drop in and 
don't consider the massive amounts of archives out there when making 
suggestions with this kind of impact.  I was also assured that I'd grow 
to love { and + and , and all that.  As it turns out, I do rather like 
the use of , for temporary files.  I've been using it in my own scripts 
here and there to indicate a file is not a permanent product, but 
should remain here and visible.  {arch} still seems to be a barrier to 
entry, though.  I use arch in spite of the way things are named, and 
the deep trees, and having to replace things like tar on some of my 
systems because the filenames within a patch are too long for the 
version of gnutar I have to store them.

	If you were designing a new archive format today, would you really 
have stuff like {arch} in it and lots of duplication leading to really 
long path names that require tool upgrades?  There doesn't seem to be a 
benefit here that justifies the trouble it causes.

	Regardless, the arch community will continue to grow, as will the 
complaints.  I do suspect it'd grow faster if people had less to 
complain about.

--
SPY                      My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub  1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <address@hidden>
|    Key fingerprint =  87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6  C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________