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. Chris
_______________________________________________ ZopeSkel mailing list ZopeSkel@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/zopeskel
