| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:13:44PM +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote: |
| 5 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 6 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Hi, |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>: |
| 11 |
> > I'm considering changing the pybugz command syntax to be something |
| 12 |
> > similar to the way portage's syntax works. For example, "pybugz get" |
| 13 |
> > would become "pybugz --get", "post" would become "--post", etc to |
| 14 |
> > simplify the command line parsing code. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > Does anyone have an objection to something like this? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> You will break app-portage/gatt. But I can deal with that. :) |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Actually, it has turned out that I didn't have to make this change, so |
| 22 |
gatt should be ok. :-) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
William |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 27 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkoIjPQACgkQblQW9DDEZTg8rQCfY4qQ9dEUHFnKX9VjU0Z2u1CP |
| 30 |
bxoAoK5wK14uPbIcBi7QXBH4t/hvK6dR |
| 31 |
=AmLz |
| 32 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives