Default editor (was: Re: Diff usage)

[Nick Thompson <ni...@agere.com>]

On Sunday 07 May 2006 13:37, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> Garrett Rooney wrote:
> > On 5/5/06, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nk...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Garrett Rooney wrote:
> >>> On 5/5/06, Mike Craig <Mi...@freeclear.com> wrote:
> >>>> Excellent, what is the timeline for 1.4?
> >>>
> >>> Well, the release branch was created today, which means there's
> >>> at least a 1 month soak period before it can possibly be
> >>> released. That said, it could be longer, depending on what bugs
> >>> are found between now and then.  If something bad is found
> >>> we'll have to restart the soak period.
> >>>
> >>> -garrett
> >>
> >> Ooohhhh! Ooohhh! Mr. Kotter! Mr. K-o-t-t-t-e-e-r-r-r-r!
> >>
> >> Can I submit a feature request right now, that the default .spec
> >> files include "/usr/bin/vi" as their default editor? The
> >> consistent and irritating "you don't have an EDITOR/SVN_EDITOR
> >> set" is just irritating for Linux users....
> >
> > If you want to change something in the rpm .spec files you should
> > probably ask David Summers (david@summersoft.fay.ar.us), the
> > maintainer of them, to make that change.
> >
> > -garrett
>
> I shall: the notes for bug reports/feature requests say I should
> submit it here, first. I'd also be glad to see people comment if it
> makes sense.

Most of my users here have never used vi. If it popped up by default, 
I don't think they would have any clue how to insert their comment or 
even (save and) exit the damn thing :-)

Most of them could figure out what the error message means and would 
set EDITOR to xemacs, kate, gvim, kedit, nano, nedit, or whatever 
else they have. They'd probably do it in their .profile and never get 
bugged by it again.

So, I'm a bit negative on switching to vi for default.

We also use ClearCase here (sigh) which has a different default. No 
EDITOR, fine, readline it is then. It just puts up a text prompt and 
allows the user to type several lines, terminated with a '.' on a 
line by itself (a la 'mail'). The prompt includes a line on how to 
terminate the input. Wouldn't that be a better solution?

bye,
-- 
> Nick Thompson

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: Default editor (was: Re: Diff usage)

[Baz <br...@gmail.com>]

On 5/8/06, Nick Thompson <ni...@agere.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 07 May 2006 13:37, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > Garrett Rooney wrote:
> > > On 5/5/06, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nk...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> Can I submit a feature request right now, that the default .spec
> > >> files include "/usr/bin/vi" as their default editor? The
> > >> consistent and irritating "you don't have an EDITOR/SVN_EDITOR
> > >> set" is just irritating for Linux users....
> > > If you want to change something in the rpm .spec files you should
> > > probably ask David Summers (david@summersoft.fay.ar.us), the
> > > maintainer of them, to make that change.
> > I shall: the notes for bug reports/feature requests say I should
> > submit it here, first. I'd also be glad to see people comment if it
> > makes sense.
[snip]
A very similar discussion was taking place across on the bzr lists at
the same time:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general/11342/focus=11398

it's mainly about the debian policy 11.4
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-customized-programs.html

to sum up: use VISUAL if it exists; else use EDITOR if it exists; else
use /usr/bin/editor.

just thought this might be useful info for whoever's looking at the issue.

-Baz

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org