On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Chris Calloway <c...@unc.edu> wrote:

> 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 of
> it.
> 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
> templates
Obviously, my vote is for a) with a warning, but I have little stake in this
either way.

ZopeSkel mailing list

Reply via email to