On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > Jacopo, > > You're missing the point - it's not as easy as that. The command "ant > run-install" is mentioned in innumerable places in documentation, websites, > books, etc. It's not just a matter of modifying a script - it's a matter of > rewriting seven years of documentation.
No, we are not changing past releases; imo we will simply have to update the documentation of the new releases and of the trunk. > > If it's not an issue, then why did you bring it up? It is not an issue for *me*, but I know that users are often confused by the run-install target. Jacopo > > -Adrian > > > --- On Tue, 4/20/10, Jacopo Cappellato <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> From: Jacopo Cappellato <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"? >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Tuesday, April 20, 2010, 11:54 PM >> The easiest way to do this would be >> to: >> 1) add run-install-demo (= run-install) >> 2) run-install should simply print a message explaining >> that now run-install-demo should be used >> >> But really, I am not very interested in spending more time >> to discuss this, especially because it is not an issue I (or >> my customers) have. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Jacopo >> >> On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> >>> I had the same thought, thanks Raj >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> From: "Raj Saini" <[email protected]> >>>> In my opinion run-install is misleading as it >> really does not tell that it is going to install demo data >> and cause confusion to new users as it has happened with me >> in the past. For the benefit of old and new users, I suggest >> to add new command run-install-demo and leave the >> run-install as it is for a while and document them to tell >> what exactly they do. There are numerous examples of this in >> the Linux/Unix world. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Raj >>>> >>>> On 21/04/10 09:39, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Ean Schuessler >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is just *your* opinion and I >> respect it (even if comparing this to altering an api is >> ridiculous)... but please quit with the "teacher/guru" >> mode... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why is it ridiculous to think of shell >> script parameters as an API? You >>>>>> would surely be surprised if "ls" became >> "rm" one day, as an extreme but >>>>>> valid example. >>>>>> >>>>> As a new user of the "OFBiz Linux OS" I would >> be also very surprised if the "rm" command really was a "rm >> -r" command; in my opinion this is worth of a change, even >> if old users would have to read one line of documentation to >> learn the change. >>>>> But really, it is not very important, I am >> more than happy to leave things as is because I understand >> that this could be annoying for old users and frankly >> speaking I don't have time and energy to further discuss >> this. >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I think we can safely regard shell scripts >> as a class of >>>>>> program. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regarding "run-install", we've set an >> expectation that run-install will >>>>>> give you a demo system and that could >> throw people off. Changing it >>>>>> doesn't seem hazardous but I'm not clear >> that it adds value. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Ean Schuessler, CTO >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> 214-720-0700 x 315 >>>>>> Brainfood, Inc. >>>>>> http://www.brainfood.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
