On Monday, June 7, 2004 at 16:18:18, Masatake YAMATO wrote: > > > I introduced ?M as merge commands prefix in inventory mode. > > > > > > M r tla-inventory-replay > > > M s tla-inventory-star-merge > > > > > > Instead, mirror uses ?<. > > > > This fits nicely to ?> for get ... > > Which are you talking about "merge" or "mirror"?
MIRROR. > About mirror, I feel the data stream direction of "mirror" > is different with "get". In branch/version buffer ">" gets a local from the archive, so I though "<" is nice as it puts/pushes from the archive to a (remote) mirror. So I have the same/similar feel about data streams ;c) > About "merge", I agree. the data stream direction of "merge" is the > same with "get". However, "merge" functions are the most important > in tla, so I think merge functions should have their own prefix. Sure. > I'm still new to arch/tla, so my opinion cannot be strong. IMHO all mirror bindings should to be the same in all *tla* buffers ... some time ago I bound all of them to "s" for "*S*ynchronize Mirror" ... now they are inconsistent again! BTW "Synchronize Mirror" is better than "Mirror" as an menu item. MIRROR is no verb (for me), i.e. it does not tell me what this item will do to the mirror, but SYNCHRONIZE makes it clear to me. One archive can have multiple mirrors, by default just syncing with the ARCHIVENAME-MIRROR, so the "loud" menu item name would be. "Synchronize Default Mirror" This triggers the question: We can create multiple mirrors from within xtla, but can we sync them? IMHO not. And another binding issue towards consistency ... in the tla-archives buffer "a" is the prefix for ADD-SOMETHING, but in other buffers it is + and - to remove something. Well, I do not want to start a binding flame war, but having the same prefixes for "semantically" equivalent commands is IMHO an good idea ... Robert.
