Masatake YAMATO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1. I think xtla-baz.el is not good name now. > It should be called baz-xtla.el. Any objection?
I'm not sure this is a good idea. tla and baz support are not completely distinguishable. xhg is the support for hg, and names its files xhg*.el, and similarly, xtla is the support for tla and baz, and should name its files xtla*.el. > 2. I think tla-dvc.el is not good name. > > We should rename it to xtla-dvc.el, or This is what we had originally, indeed but, this breaks `dvc-function' which does a (require ...-dvc nil t) in case the function is not found. So the naming tla-dvc.el and baz-dvc.el are more than conventions. They're needed for DVC to work. > We should rename xtla-\\(.+\\)\.el to tla(match-string 1).el That's not very satisfying either, since you'd have baz related code in tla*.el files. Let's say that xtla*.el is a common library this is used by tla-dvc.el and baz-dvc.el which provide the DVC backends. > 3. How do you think adding a new file named dvc.el. > dvc.el do only require other dvc files like: > > (require 'dvc-core) > (require 'dvc-unified) > ... > > (provide 'dvc) > > So in backend, just (require 'dvc) is needed. No opinion on this. > 4. Splitting xtla.el into smaller parts > > xtla is still too large. Is it o.k. to split them into > smaller xtla-*.el files? > > How do you think? I think we should spend as little time as possible on Xtla. Bazaar 1.x is being deprecated if not abandonned. tla is given a short second life, but far superior alternatives are emerging, while tla doesn't plan major evolutions, so ... -- Matthieu
