UI confusion / consistency

Robert Collins robertc at robertcollins.net
Thu Nov 22 23:29:42 GMT 2007


On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 16:58 -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> 
> > Yeah, I agree - and I think that makes sense. However, it would be nice
> > if this was more consistent - that's why I brought up "bzr conflicts"
> > and "bzr ignore".
> 
> Well, I agree about "ignore", but I think it should be equivalent to
> "add".  For "conflicts", we can't seem to agree about "status" display,
> so there's no point changing conflicts until then.
> 
> Since we're a whole tree tool, I think we should show all changes.  But
> others think we should only show changes encompassed by the cwd.  I
> think that if your write operations are whole-tree, your read operations
> should also be.

I think we could easily have commit assume a filter of '.'. That would
allow status of '.' etc etc etc to be consistent.

I agree that the default scope of operations should be the same across
all commands.

My personal preference would be to have all operations work from cwd
down, by default - even operations like merge could do this in principal
with robust cherrypick suppport; that said today we're not there so
perhaps erroring on commands that could be partial by default when we
fix bugs would be sensible to avoid surprising people.

OTOH what we have now works well and is pretty tasty (but I _very_
rarely cd into a subdir on projects I work on).

-Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20071123/3b999ed1/attachment.pgp 


More information about the bazaar mailing list