[merge] bzr whoami

[John Arbash Meinel]

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

Robey Pointer wrote:
> 
> On 3 Jul 2006, at 7:12, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> 
>>>> v- in general, I prefer 'run_bzr' to runbzr. I personally think runbzr
>>>> should go away. (It only exists on ExternalBase, not
>>>> TestCaseInTempDir).
>>>
>>> I just missed that one when migrating the rest.  I do think that it's
>>> utterly confusing which one of the various run*bzr* methods is meant to
>>> be called.  Why not mark the other ones as deprecated?  I picked
>>> 'run_bzr' pretty much by personal choice since I couldn't remember which
>>> one was preferred from the last time the 'whoami' patch failed to land.
>>
>> I agree, which is why I think run_bzr should die. :)
>> But it is used in enough code that doing a cleanup isn't very trivial.
>> And they do have slightly different semantics (runbzr() splits on
>> whitespace).
> 
> Wait, are you sure you mean 'run_bzr'? :)

Sorry runbzr is the one that should go.

> 
> 'runbzr' is just a wrapper around run_bzr, using a fragile arg-parsing
> strategy and not supporting things like encoding.  If anything, I think
> that's the one that should go...
> 
> 
>>>> I think we may want to validate that the supplied value really is a:
>>>>
>>>> "Full Name <email at address.com>"
>>>>
>>>> Rather than just letting them do:
>>>>
>>>> bzr whoami george
>>>>
>>>> We do accept short names (I don't think we explicitly require email
>>>> addresses anywhere). But we would probably at least want to warn the
>>>> user that it is recommended to use a full email address, etc.
>>>
>>> I think that's a good idea.  I would want to just reuse the method that
>>> does this extraction in config, so it should be a separate patch.
>>
>> Sure. I realize you have a branch for this, but is there any reason you
>> didn't post a patch?
> 
> Sorry, I just wanted to get the patch landed.  I've had terrible luck in
> the past with patches getting lost, either because of long, side-tracked
> debates or just getting lost in the shuffle.
> 
> Also I thought it would be harder than it turned out to be.  I think the
> tiny attached bundle is all that's required.  (It's also in my whoami
> branch.)
> 
> robey
> 

Your other branch has landed.

I'm not sure about this one. I'm thinking more that we should give a
warning/recommendation, but accept it if they don't want to use an email
address.

What do other people think?

John
=:->

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEqvl8JdeBCYSNAAMRAinMAJ9t+vVy20j/OpXSZjeP2SeyKJRBxQCgs8zE
dyBv4MzOh0P6/SC6jLpDL4k=
=FKIQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----