(fwd) bzr shelve feedback

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Brad Bollenbach wrote:

>> Meta-comment:
>> If you want to discuss what bzr shelve/unshelve should be like, it  would
>> be much better to post to the list.  The only bug I see is
>> documentation.  The rest is in the eye of the beholder.

> Is it reasonable to assume that a bzr user would be subscribed to and 
> involved in the bzr mailing list?

Yes.  Maybe in a few months, less so.  But right now, the docs are
inadequate and things are still changing rapidly.

> I don't want to be a bzr expert (particularly not for the things that 
> must be simple), I want it to Just Work.
> 
> Meanwhile though, I feel like I'm making my contribution by reporting 
> in Malone what I think are bugs, based on what I bump into as a brand 
> new bzr user.

If you don't make use of the resources available, e.g. IRC and the
mailing list, you will report things as bugs that aren't.  While bzr
strives to be easy to use, it can't be completely intuitive in every
regard, and its documentation is incomplete.  You're going to have to
ask questions.  Hopefully, some of those answers will become part of the
documentation, but they aren't yet.

Your bug report basically translates as "bzr unshelve isn't baz undo",
and my answer to that is "Correct.  It's not."  Had you asked "What's
the equivalent of baz undo?" on the list, you would have gotten a
helpful answer.  Probably along the lines of "Revert, except that
there's no redo command".

>> And since shelve/unshelve are part of the bzrtools plugin, not bzr,  it's
>> not appropriate to file a bug against bzr.
> 
> 
> Like most new bzr users, I have no idea about this distinction. :) To 
> be honest, I'm not really interested in caring about this distinction 
> either.

Okay, if you're not interested in directing the bugs at the people who
write the code, that's your prerogative.

>(This reminds me of the time that we accidentally expected 
> Launchpad users to distinguish "Soyuz" from "Launchpad" when filing 
> bugs. :)

There are two separate packages.  You installed both.  Bzrtools isn't
even a Canonical project.

> I used to use undo quite happily in baz. The fact that it's been 
> removed from bzr makes it a bit hard not to complain.

Complain if you like, but it's baz and tla that use the term incorrectly.

> I can live with learning a new word, if the interface helps me kick 
> ass. The apparent equivalent, shelve, makes my life harder.

It's not the equivalent.  There is no exact equivalent.  Shelve is a
fine-grained tool for separating text changes, and has an 'unshelve'
equivalent.  Revert is a non-interactive command that reverses all
changes, like permissions, renames and symlink changes, but does not
provide an inverse operation.

> I learn  now
> that it's not actually the equivalent, but that doesn't stop us  recent
> baz -> bzr converts from thinking of it that way when there's  no other
> alternative (that I've found out about, in any case.)

The other alternative is revert.

> At UBZ, I did get some nods from the bzr guys (you and mpool, IIRC) 
> about renaming shelve to undo. :)

We know there's work to be done in thus area.

> In slightly over a year of working on Malone, though I've used baz  undo
> many times, I was never particularly bothered by not being able  to pick
> things apart hunk by hunk.

So use revert instead, then.  Or shelve --all, if you've only made text
changes and you want to get them back later.

When you need it, it's very nice, though.  For one thing, it's a great
way to remove debugging code.

> Yep, I inferred that hitting "?" shows me this. I just hoped the 
> interface would be so simple that reading help wouldn't be necessary.

Shelve is a lot more sophisticated than revert.

>> I would say it's most important for the user to know that they can
>> 1. continue
>> 2. re-select their hunks
> 
> 
> I'm only reporting the confusion this question fed me my first couple 
> of times reading it.
> 

> Here's a second example of how I think that question might be made 
> clearer:
> 
>    "Shelve these changes (y), or restart (r)? [yrsiq?] (y)"

Yeah, 'y' is a poor choice there.  Maybe (C)ontinue or (F)inish or (A)pply?

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDheop0F+nu1YWqI0RAtW7AJ4rNllyM5Sx89G1QabxXD4aK1hjLwCeMrZY
JRxhd0hzw8yewvKzvbzQ3bg=
=ffjb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----