On 3/16/2010 10:37 AM, Chris Rossi wrote:
If I may play devil's advocate here, isn't the very idea that zopeskel
would do your svn checkin for you a bit overwrought? Is it so hard to run
the template and then do svn add? The easiest features to support are the
features you don't have, and with a feature like this it's going to be
especially hard to get right because different users are going to have
different expectations. I would, for example, consider anything that tried
to check in .egg-info to be broken. I would argue that maybe the right
choice is to drop this feature altogether and assume users can handle their
own source control.
If we were going to add this feature today, yeah, we should think better
But at the sprint we agreed on a "do no harm" policy to the ZopeSkel
users who already use pre-existing features of ZopeSkel, however
ill-considered those features may be.
That's part of why we made the zopeskel wrapper binary: so we could make
usability changes to ZopeSkel for the benefit of themers and
integrators, without impacting the developers who already depend on
ZopeSkel as it is (and who use an unwrapped paster binary).
So as far as the zopeskel binary goes, --svn-repository is probably a
paster option it should either:
a) not be passing along to paster (and maybe warning about it), or
b) doing a combination of:
i) checking for non-egg templates, and
ii) Clayton's good idea (setting svn:ignore on egg-info) for egg
As far as developer users of ZopeSkel, who use paster directly, they
can't be fixed here without fixing PasteScript (and impacting the many
communities Clayton pointed out besides just us who use PasteScript).
The ticket was filed against the zopeskel binary, so that is fixable
without going upstream. Another reason to keep these upstream tickets
open: once we talk about it, the solution might be less upstream than
office: 332 Chapman Hall phone: (919) 599-3530
mail: Campus Box #3300, UNC-CH, Chapel Hill, NC 27599
ZopeSkel mailing list