On Monday 22 September 2008 16:50:21 Hisham wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Michael Homer > The solution to this
> "problem" is that you don't enable generic flags
>
> > you don't want to use, and you don't list programs you don't want to
> > use as part of the generics you *do* want to u
2008/9/22 Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Michael Homer > The solution to this
> "problem" is that you don't enable generic flags
>> you don't want to use, and you don't list programs you don't want to
>> use as part of the generics you *do* want to use. If you want t
2008/9/22 Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> After a long discussion on IRC (mostly between Michael and me) two
>> views on how general flags should behave have emerged. Since Michael
>> and me is of different opinions we woul
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Michael Homer > The solution to this
"problem" is that you don't enable generic flags
> you don't want to use, and you don't list programs you don't want to
> use as part of the generics you *do* want to use. If you want to use a
> specific implementation for a part
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After a long discussion on IRC (mostly between Michael and me) two
> views on how general flags should behave have emerged. Since Michael
> and me is of different opinions we would like some more input on this
> topic.
>
>
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 2:35 AM, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hope to get some input on this and in the end come to a consensus.
> It seems the two states of set and unset aren't enough. How does
> adding a
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 2:35 AM, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A problem with this approach is that there's no way to reset a generic
> flag to the default behaviour. If +bbb is set there is no way to reset
> "aaa" to selecting from the full "bbb ccc ddd" group. Currently just
> spe
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It has been pointed out that zsh has very powerful tab completion and we could
> probably reconfigure it to ignore those executables unless you actually
> entered the - yourself, if it turned out to be a real problem.
I
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Jonas Karlsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If versioned executables is only used by our tools that is an option,
> but are they? Can't a user want to run a specific version of an
> application?
>
Specify a full path? But at that point they could just access it
On Sunday 21 September 2008 21:35:19 Jonas Karlsson wrote:
> After a long discussion on IRC (mostly between Michael and me) two
> views on how general flags should behave have emerged. Since Michael
> and me is of different opinions we would like some more input on this
> topic.
Further explanation
After a long discussion on IRC (mostly between Michael and me) two
views on how general flags should behave have emerged. Since Michael
and me is of different opinions we would like some more input on this
topic.
Currently we have three levels of use flags, were each lower level
override an higher
2008/9/21 Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sunday 21 September 2008 19:09:19 Carlo Calica wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> > My preference, for the record, is still to version all executables all
>> > the time. I like consistency and r
On Sunday 21 September 2008 19:09:19 Carlo Calica wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > My preference, for the record, is still to version all executables all
> > the time. I like consistency and reliability.
> I don't mind /S/L/E getting cluttered
2008/9/21 Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> My preference, for the record, is still to version all executables all the
>> time. I like consistency and reliability.
>>
>
> I don't mind /S/L/E getting cluttered up. I
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My preference, for the record, is still to version all executables all the
> time. I like consistency and reliability.
>
I don't mind /S/L/E getting cluttered up. I do mind tab completion
being weird but could probably
15 matches
Mail list logo
