On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Steve Borho <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 01:46 +0000, TK Soh wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Steve Borho <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > * Optional overlay support (no TortoiseOverlays or hooks registered) >> >> Do you mean no display of overlays icons, or display without using >> TortoiseOverlays? > > No overlays registered at all. This is a frequent request. > >> > * Optional shell integration (no COM services registered at all) >> >> Just to speak my mind. While I understand the 'issues' this is trying >> to address, we can't call it a Tortoise(HG) without the shell >> integration. That's the reason why I never try to provide a channel to >> achieve this from within TortoiseHg (yes, it can be done) >> >> I understand the overlay icons display is less than optimum now, but >> the context menu has to be there. > > I know we disagree about this. In my view, if your product has a > feature that is genuinely helpful to 90% of your end-users, and > completely prevents the other 10% from using it, then you make it > optional. It's all about removing barriers so more people can use what > they can. > > We're eventually going to fix the blocking problems for those other 10%, > but that's no reason to prevent them from using the rest of the tool > today. I don't think that makes it Un-tortoise (but if the Tortoise > lawyers come after me, I'll be changing my tune).
It's not a matter of legitimacy, we advertised TortoiseHg as "a shell extension that let users of Mercurial SCM (Hg) work directly from MS-Windows Explorer". Over time, TortoiseHg has expanded it's scope (via hgtk, nautilus), but Explorer integration should remain the primary goal when comes to Windows. > There's another reason I want to allow the shell extensions to be > optional that has nothing to do with any perceived flaws that might be > there, and that's to allow a basic permission install just like the base > Mercurial installers that Lee Cantey packages. A lot of people are > > forced to use the base installer because they do not have permission on > their work PC to install TortoiseHg. This opens up a whole other group > of users. > > I also think this will eventually allow users to test-drive new releases > (or nightly builds) without destroying their existing setups, or having > to reboot multiple times. Like I said, I do understand what it is trying to accomplish. > just my $.02 Apparently the $0.02 is now mine. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ Tortoisehg-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-discuss
