Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Newbie confusion "illegal revision name"

[Aaron Bentley]

Andrew Wilcox wrote:

> Aaron Bentley replied:
>
> > "patch-3" is a patchlevel, not a revision name of any kind.
>
>
> I understand, though I will point out (as a new user to arch) that the
> following did seem to suggest to me that these were revisions within
> the version:
>
>     $ tla revisions
>     base-0
>     patch-1
>     patch-2
>     patch-3

However, the output of $tla revisions --full is

address@hidden/foo--bar--0--base-0
address@hidden/foo--bar--0--patch-1
address@hidden/foo--bar--0--patch-2
address@hidden/foo--bar--0--patch-3

Which should suggest that the "foo--bar--0--patch-3" form is not the 
fully-qualified form.

> I agree that I don't know what the correct wording is, as I'm new to
> arch.
>
> However, I did not understand the error message "illegal revision
> name", even after reading the tutorial and the on-line help.  

The patch-level terminology is diagrammed here:
http://regexps.srparish.net/tutorial-tla/retrieving-earlier-revisions.html

The term "fully-qualified revision name" is described here:
http://regexps.srparish.net/tutorial-tla/shared-and-public-archives.html

> Thus I stand by my suggestion that the error message be improved.

The corrected version would be "not a valid revision name", which isn't 
very different from "illegal revision name".

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.

If you think that error's bad, what about this?
tla add-id .arch-ids
tla tree-lint
error finding file id (21: Is a directory)
 path: ./.arch-ids/.arch-ids
PANIC: arch_inventory_id

Aaron
--
Aaron Bentley
Director of Technology
Panometrics, Inc.