olive vs bzr-gtk

[Martin Pool]

On  4 Sep 2006, Szilveszter Farkas <szilveszter.farkas at gmail.com> wrote:

> >It's very obvious what something called 'bzr-gtk' would do (at least to
> >Linux users), 'Olive' somewhat less so though it is a nice name.
> >Jelmer's suggestion could work well.
> 
> I share Jelmer's view regarding this question. I think the name Olive
> shouldn't disappear (maybe once we'll have a QT frontend, too).

Good.

> Currently the bzr-gtk code is under bzrlib.plugins.gtk.*, and Olive is
> under olive.* (e.g. olive.frontend.gtk.*). So what you suggest is to
> merge bzr-gtk's and Olive'd GTK code into bzrgtk.*?

Either bzrlib.plugins.gtk or bzrlib.plugins.olive is fine with me.

> >So, Szilveszter, can you say something about how you came to have this,
> >or what you would need in bzrlib to avoid having it in backend?
> 
> I'd be very happy if the problem above could be solved (cmd_* classes
> shouldn't be more than 10-20 lines IMHO).

I agree.  You and Jelmer are probably best placed to design that new
layering since you'll be the new users, but I will try to help.  Patches
to trim that code and separate it into a layer separate from gui or
cmdline would be welcome.  (Robert's simplification of
WorkingTree.merge_from_branch is a good start.)


-- 
Martin