Re: [Monotone-devel] automate stdio, really

[Thomas Moschny]

On Wednesday 30 August 2006 14:25, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> Isn't this going a bit far?  Soon, we will have automate commands for
> all "normal" commands if we continue like this.  Isn't that getting a
> bit ridiculous, not to mention the risks involved, like having to
> update the same command in two places all the time?
>
> I dunno what the solution is.  Maybe have stdio work with non-automate
> commands as well, and having all commands be able to output stdio-
> specific data that would be more oriented for scripts, as well as
> human readable output, all depending on how the command was called.

Ok, this is a taboo subject, but it imho raises the mtn-library and 
mtn-frontend(s) discussion again.

Of course we will end up with all commands available in automate. If a command 
wasn't useful, it would not be in the 'normal' cmdline interface either.

-- 
Thomas Moschny  <address@hidden>

pgpoVgM14eufO.pgp
Description: PGP signature