Re: [PATCH v3] contrib/nmbug: new script for sharing tags with a given prefix.

Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] contrib/nmbug: new script for sharing tags with a given prefix.

Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:55:15 -0500

To: Jameson Graef Rollins, notmuch@notmuchmail.org

Cc:

From: David Bremner

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:26:28 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:08:15 -0500, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:
> > The most important commands are
> > 
> >     commit	xapian -> git
> >     checkout	git -> xapian
> >     merge	fetched git + git -> xapian
> >     status	find differences between xapian, git, and remote git.
> 
> Hey, David.  Just for clarification, the above seems a little
> inconsistent with the documentation included with the script, which
> implies that the "most common commands", which are I believe meant to be
> the only ones that the user should routinely have to use, are "commit",
> "push", and "pull".  I got the impression that "checkout" and "merge"
> should only be needed if you're trying to recover a broken system.

Hi Jamie;

I think the commit message and the online help are aimed a different
audience, so it is not crucial (or even desirable) that they be exactly
the same.  Perhaps it would be more clear to say that these are the
"non-trivial" commands.

The "most commonly used commands" could be retitled "the minimal set of
commands to use nmbug". My own workflow involves fetch, merge, and the
occasional checkout. Your might or might not; in my case it has to do
with the fact that I am syncing tags in several different ways.

> > There are also some convenience wrappers around git commands.
> Isn't much of nmbug "convenience wrappers around git commands"? 

The distinction I'm trying to make here is between one-liners like
"fetch" and slightly hairy things like "commit", where I had to learn
new things about git to implement the latter.

> It seems to me that the fact that nmbug is using git underneath should
> be almost completely abstracted away from the user.

Well, in the sense that user should not normally have to use raw git
commands, I agree. I don't really see any point in hiding the fact that
it is using git e.g. in the documentation.  It doesn't seem likely that
nmbug will support more than one version control system without a
complete rewrite.

And of course the commit messages are supposed to tell how things work,
so no point being coy there.

d

Thread: