[MERGE/RFC] Userdoc Driven Design on the Bazaar 2.0 UI

[Ben Finney]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:

> Ben Finney writes:
>  > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:
>  > > It is quite clear from the tutorial that effective use of the
>  > > vaunted flexibility of bzr needs intimate knowledge of
>  > > implementation details.
>  > > 
>  > > But I don't understand *why* it's needed.
>  > 
>  > I would say its necessary simply because the natural tendency is
>  > for the software interface to get more complex as it develops, and
>  > it takes significant effort to make it simpler.
> 
> Of course, that's the *historical* tendency.  But Ian's post is a
> *deliberate break* from history.  So here "necessary" refes to
> (techno-)logically necessary, and can't we avoid it?

No, it refers to the current state of necessity that you describe. You
asked why it's necessary in a context that clearly asks about why this
state of affairs is so, and my answer was in that context.

I don't think the current state of affairs nor the forces that cause a
tendency for that state to remain, are intractable. But in the absence
of effort against those forces, they become the default state, I argue.

-- 
 \          “The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the |
  `\     world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports |
_o__)  the strong probability that yours is a fake.” —Henry L. Mencken |
Ben Finney