On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 08:29:35PM +0600, Ivan Shmakov wrote: > >>>>> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I think my scars from using GNU Arch are finally fading. If you > > haven't used bzr before, you should find it to have most of the > > benefits and few of the drawbacks; its designers were certainly very > > aware of both aspects of Arch. > > One advantage of GNU Arch is that it allows one to make local > branches for remote projects without having to clone the whole > remote repository. AFAIK, it's the feature that most of the > DVCS are still lacking.
git has shallow branches, and it's on the roadmap for bzr too, though not done yet. (I actually like having to clone the whole remote repository, though, because it effectively gives me an automatic backup. I have regretted the fact that Arch didn't give me this, but unfortunately only years after the point where it would have been useful; a portion of dpkg's revision control history is lost, probably forever, due to this.) > > I have an ulterior motive, of course; I could do with more people > > than just me working on man-db. :-) If it becomes necessary, I'll be > > happy to move up my list the task of moving man-db's bzr repository > > to somewhere where I can give access to other people, but in the > > meantime I expect that just making branches will work fine. > > My opinion is that making branches is fine, as long as there's > someone to collect the changes and to integrate them into a > central repository (of some sort.) Of course. For man-db, that person is obviously me. > > I'm not sure what to do about the IX thing; an option called --warnings > > doesn't really seem to reflect the possibility of prepending some groff > > input which does some other stuff. Yet, I think the important thing here > > is that it should be easy for people to check their manual pages, and > > that the option we add should reflect that. > > > How about an option called --audit (and perhaps something like > > --audit-warnings=mac,escape if you want finer control)? > > Why not --audit and --warnings[=...]? The former given without > the latter will behave as if the latter is given without an > optional argument, while the latter given without the former > will just switch Groff warnings on, while not adding the > `-maudit'. That produces strange semantics, though, IMO: --warnings would enable the checks themselves, and all that --audit would do in addition to --warnings would be to switch some particular warnings *off*, which isn't what "audit" means! I'd rather have --audit be the main switch (easy to use, simple to explain) and have something else to modify it for experts who want fine control. It had also occurred to me that 'man -A' would be free as a short spelling of 'man --audit', although it would be worth checking the other GNU/Linux man implementation to make sure it doesn't clash with something there. > > When used, it would add something like -wmac -M/usr/share/man-db > > -maudit to groff's command line options. /usr/share/man-db/audit.tmac > > would be a bit like what you suggested for man.local and mdoc.local > > in #377392, except that > > [... it's completely different?...] Two out of four lines were the same! *ahem* Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
