I'm a bit late to the party, sorry, just catching up on my backlog. As one of the people who proposed the change I am of course happy with it. However, that doesn't mean too much, since I have been using -i as my personal default for a very long time, so for me the change wasn't even noticeable.
I can fully understand that some people prefer using a pager, so they can view a full screen of changes at a time. Either way, it is just one entry in the personal configuration to change the default. I did not propose this change with experienced users in mind -- I mean users experienced enough with a command line that they know how to effectively use a pager. I have been thinking of the many very inexperienced users where I work: they are used to Windows and quite illiterate with command line tools. I am happy if I get one of them to even use 'darcs changes' at all. Explaining to them that they have to add an extra '...|less' after the command (and why) is an unnecessary distraction and just something more for them to remember. Cheers Ben Gian Piero Carrubba wrote: > * [Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:10:23AM -0700] Simon Michael: >>>Any thoughts about interactive changes by default? >> >>I've been living with it for several months, and I'm not a huge fan. > > Neither I am a huge fan, but I'm getting used and would probably leave > it interactive. There are anyway some things that still puzzle me. > > 'log' isn't a real command, so i.e. I cannot type `darcs l`. I've just > discovered that `darcs --commands` does not output 'log', so I cannot > understand how bash can complete it, but at least bash completion works > so that's it. Nevertheless, I would still prefer if `darcs l` worked. > > I'm still not really used to changes being interactive, so I often end > up typing `changes -v`. This is annoying, especially when used with a > selector (like '--last 1'): displays the patch then asks me if I want to > see the patch and waits for an answer (and sometimes I don't > see/remember about the prompt and let it waiting just to wonder some > time after why I still have a darcs command running). I don't see why it > should prompt the user when passed the '-v' option (but it probably > should use a pager, see the next point). > > More in general, I don't like how both log and changes display the > results. I think it has been discussed previously, but don't know what > was the general orientation. IMHO, both commands should feed the output > to a pager if STDOUT points to a terminal and the output is longer than > the number of lines of the terminal (+/- a number of "courtesy lines") > or longer than 20 lines if the terminal's height cannot be determined > [0]. > Some examples: > `darcs log` -> maybePager > `log=$( darcs log )` -> STDOUT > `darcs changes` | prompting the user -> STDOUT > | displaying the patch -> maybePager > `darcs log | less` -> STDOUT (then fed to the pipe by the shell) > > Ciao, > Gian Piero. > > [0] I think the code is already (almost/all ?) in place and used i.e. > when given the '--help' argument. -- Ben Franksen () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachm€nts _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
