Eclipse Integration (was Re: Bazaar 1.0...)

[Aaron Bentley]

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

Martin Pool wrote:
>> Andrew Cowie wrote:
>>> I lost data due to `bzr switch` very early on, and the
>>> experience continues to haunt me.
>> Would you please either give me a bug report, or stop going on and on
>> about this?  How on earth am I expected to improved the quality when I
>> don't know what's wrong?
> 
> I don't think Andrew is saying it as a vague bug report.

I'm under no illusion that Andrew is trying to provide a bug report.
Andrew likes to malign bzrtools and the concept of plugins in general in
public forums.  But he refuses to give details that would either

- - provide evidence to back up his accusations
- - provide a way to solve the problems.

Until this thread, I didn't even know which *command* he claimed had
caused data loss.  I really think it's irresponsible not to report a
data loss bug.

Since he's asserting that *switch* caused data loss, I'm even less
inclined to believe him than I previously was.  Switch can't operate on
anything but lightweight checkouts, so all he could lose would be
uncommitted changes.

>  Rather
> 
>  - if something's bad when a user originally encounters it, it takes a
> while, or a positive contrary action, to overcome that experience

I can't take positive contrary action.  I've asked him to provide a bug
report in the past, and he won't.

To me, this is like SCO saying "Linux copied a mountain of our code, but
we won't tell them what, so they can't remove it."  He's perpetuating
the problem (if there is one) so that he can complain about it.

>  - more concretely, he sees plugin commands as being less solid or
> stable than builtins.

He was also under many illusions about bzrtools; he seemed to think that
it had no test suite, and that no one supported it.

> This is a reasonable tradeoff for features that are new, or
> experimental, or relevant to only a few people.  However, once code
> matures beyond that state we should look at closing the loop by
> bringing them into bzr core, or at least making them shipped plugins.

Well, for something like bzr-gtk, it's not really a minority interest,
but it's a whole different domain.  Even though I use gannotate a lot, I
don't think it would make sense to bring it into core.

But for bzrtools, the door's always open.  If there's anything you think
should be moved into core, please let me know.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHQuj+0F+nu1YWqI0RAo52AJ9laSKLCmEtCGvdNI+Ob0j4JyjSEACeKzwK
XLfB209LLbG3RXMXqWfsPYo=
=qKlA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----