bzr-windows team mailing list archive

[Maritza Mendez <martitzam@xxxxxxxxx>]

I understand that there will always be a need for plain old tarballs
but windows might not be that place.  windows users expect an
installer and often perceive a robust installer as a mark of
completeness and usability.

I agree that providing anything more than a basic gui diff tool is a
potential distraction.  Many people seem to have strong preferences
when it comes to 3way merge.  Better to let them provide their own
with good instructions on integrating it.  I like BeyondCompare3 (on
both win and linux) and use extmerge to invoke it.  Getting it set up
was not hard but I'm thinking about whether I can write a note that
would help.

~M


On 8/16/09, Philippe Lhoste <PhiLho@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/08/2009 13:37, Alexander Belchenko wrote:
>  > g) Installer for CLI-only version of bzr?
>
> Here, I wonder: why do we need an installer here? Actually, I can ask
> the question for any config... I like software shipped as archive that I
> can just unzip at the place of my choice.
> Installers can be useful, of course: they install start menu shortcuts
> (not super important for the CLI), register shell extensions (only for
> TBzr? Can be done with a simple .cmd file), change environment variables
> (for PATH and BZR_HOME, nice but easy enough to do manually).
> All nice and good, but hardly unavoidable. And even less useful for
> updates, once these operations have been done.
>
>  > h) Documentation format. I found CHM format is very nice, especially
>  > because of Search feature. But it was mentioned it becomes obsolete.
>
> We need an official reference saying it is obsolete before dropping
> CHM... It is still a convenient format. At least for its search
> capabilities across various HTML files.
> Note: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/902225/
> Vista has some issues opening CHM files because of stupid application of
> security rules. There are workarounds and it might have been corrected.
>
>  > HTML docs works just fine.
>
> Indeed, but I mentioned the problem of searching. I don't want to have a
> server running just to be able to search my doc.
>
>  >     * GUI merge tool? Which one? (I've tried WinMerge: it's not bad at
>  > all, but QBzr currently have problems to use it from qconflicts)
>
> I vote against shipping a GUI merge tool. That's like shipping an editor
> for writing the commit message... And keeping it up to date might be
> problematic. User should be able to get its one, we can recommend a few
> choices too.
> I don't even know if WinMerge can be used as a three-way merge tool (I
> think it cannot), I use Perforce Merge for that, an excellent free tool
> (although you must download the whole Perforce package to get it, I just
> made my own zip with it, but I doubt we can distribute it). I still use
> WinMerge as diff tool.
>
> --
> Philippe Lhoste
> --  (near) Paris -- France
> --  http://Phi.Lho.free.fr
> --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~bzr-windows
> Post to     : bzr-windows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~bzr-windows
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>