[RFC] metaweave format

[Martin Pool]

On 30/04/2006, at 2:08 AM, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>>
>> @@ -902,12 +906,14 @@
>>      takes_options = [
>>                       Option('format',
>>                              help='Create a specific format rather  
>> than the'
>> -                                 ' current default format.  
>> Currently this '
>> -                                 ' option only accepts "metadir"',
>> +                                 ' current default format.  
>> Currently, the'
>> +                                 ' only supported format is "knit"',
>>                              type=get_format_type),
>>                       ]
>
> If we are only going to mention one format, I would tend to say it as:
> "The recommended format is 'knit'".
> I think we are honestly planning to support all of the formats, so
> saying 'knit' is the only supported one is wrong.
>
> Maybe this:
> Specify the format for this branch. Current options are: default,  
> knit,
> metaweave, and weave. default=knit, metaweave and weave are  
> deprecated.
>
> It is a little bit long, but I think it is honest.

I agree that's better; just to be a bit more clear I would say

   Specify the format for this branch. Current options are: default,  
knit,
   metaweave, and weave.  The default is knit; metaweave and weave  
are deprecated.

> Because it is long, and probably more confusing/distracting, I would
> tend to move the help text into some sort of advanced section. And do
> something like:
> Specify the format for this branch. See "bzr help branch-formats" for
> more information.
>
> At present, we don't have a good mechanism for detailed extra help (at
> least that I know of). But I think that would be useful to have.
> It would also help us for "bzr help revision-specs", which we have  
> long
> had issues with.

I filed
https://launchpad.net/products/bzr/+bug/42714
to track this

> Attached is kind of a prototype of that system. There could  
> certainly be
> other ways of doing it. What do people think?

That would be good, though I don't think it's needed for 0.8.

Although many of the topics will just be simple strings I think they  
should be defined as objects so that there is at least a possibility  
to have them dynamically create e.g. a list of all known formats.  So  
I would go for something more like the way commands are defined.

-- 
Martin