RFC: TortoiseBzr strategies

[Talden]

On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Mark Hammond
<mhammond at skippinet.com.au> wrote:
> Paul Moore writes:
>
>  > I'd like to retain an installation option (either a separate
>  > installer, or more sensibly an option in a single "blessed" installer)
>  > to just install a command line version, exactly as the current bzr.
>  > Not all Windows users want to use a GUI for everything :-)
>
>  Definitely.  Many developers that use Windows don't treat it much
>  differently than we do other operating systems.  Personally I have never
>  used any of the tortoise tools, simply as find the command-line more
>  productive for almost everything I do.  It is quite rare that I browse my
>  source trees using Windows explorer.  I almost never use the source control
>  features built into my IDE.  The command-line is more flexible and less RSI
>  inducing than Explorer.  If an installer has an option to disable windows
>  shell integration, I almost always check it!
>
>  That said, I understand that lots and lots of people who use cvs/svn on
>  windows - quite probably a majority - use tortoise and swear by it.

I'd say my use is split 80/20 in favour of the commandline - sometimes
it's easier and quicker to just click through some of the easy
right-click behaviours one after another than it is to script
something or use the commandline directly.  Despite this I could
probably survive without the shell integration.

The real issue for me (and I suspect others trying to get acceptance
in their teams) is that I have zero chance of getting Bazaar approved
without either IDE or shell integration - 'Management' see shell
integration as a poor-mans alternative to, yet acceptable, IDE
integration.

Though I don't expect to see strong IDE integration before the point
in time at which I need to have selected and implemented an approved
tool, I am hopeful to see enough progress on TortoiseBZR to get some
leniency from 'Management' in selecting Bazaar.

--
Talden