On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:39:22AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > All of these are minor improvments, and nothing significant. For > > tla you had `tla-fork', and `tla-switch'. > > No you didn't, they were NOT part of tla. > > Not directly, but then, baz was never part of tla, so your point is > completely moot, irrelevant, and you are looking for a flame.
? The discussion here, I thought, was comparing baz to tla. branch and switch are part of baz, but weren't part of tla. Surely this is relevant? > If I add a new option, or an alias for a old one, that is not a > significant change. That is the only change baz did, add some aliases This is not true, changes beyond simple aliasing and new options were made. I've explicitly listed some in a previous mail, as well as given you this URL: http://wiki.gnuarch.org/BazaarVsTla which also describes changes other than trivial tweaks to commands, and even so is not a complete list -- e.g. it doesn't discuss the improvements to gpg signing configuration. For that matter, new commands like "baz resolved" (and the accompanying "baz status --conflicts") may not be terribly complicated, but in terms of improved user experience, it's significant. > or change the behaviour of a very small subset of options. Such > changes are not significant. I find it amazing that some people here > have such grave reading difficulties. I find it amazing that you completely discount first-hand reports of improved user experience (either that, or you have grave reading difficulties...). -Andrew. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
