On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 03:55:38PM +0200, Albert Reiner wrote: > [Frederik Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:00:22 -0700]: > > (a) I think it's useless and shouldn't be part of darcs > > Exactly my sentiment.
OK. > Isn't this the classic occasion for a simple wrapper script? One > might want to put a reference implementation into some contrib/ > subdirectory of the distribution. Except that you could put a reference implementation into darcs itself and then it would be easier to access. *shrug* > One problem both the darcs command and the script face, though, is > making sure the user ends up in a reasonable directory afterwards: Say > I run `darcs release` inside a repo; at the end of the command, the > current working directory should be gone, with effects that easily > confuse inexperienced people (especially if they are not aware of the > fact that a repo is simply a directory). With a script the user might > at least set up an `alias darcs_release=". /path/to/contrib/release"`; > at some point that script is likely to change to a directory above the > root of the current repo, and this is where the user will be left > then. I don't know whether a proper darcs command could affect the > $PWD of the parent process, i.e., the shell. You're setting up a straw man, I never proposed to change the directory. I don't even think you can delete the working directory (... you can't, you get EBUSY). In my example the repository was specified explicitly, as it would have to be since you're going to be outside of it. > `Release' seems to be a particularly bad name, by the way: I would > expect many programmers to associate it with `making a new release', > or `releasing a new version' of program. Yeah, I mentioned this. At worst it could be a sub-option to 'push'. Cheers, Frederik -- http://ofb.net/~frederik/ _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
