"local_mode" and "no_commits" options for "new" command

[Vlad Skvortsov]

Иван Глушков wrote:


[skipped]

>>
>> Currently only 2 commands make use of '-l':
>> 22:27 [vss at claw] ~/ditrack/src/trunk > find . -name "*.py" | xargs grep
>> -n local_mode
>> ./DITrack/Command/list.py:62: if opts.var["local_mode"]:
>> ./DITrack/Command/new.py:110: if opts.var["local_mode"] or
>> opts.var["no_commits"]:
>>
>>
>> See also i#82.
>>
>> My feeling is that '-l' is not appropriate. Now we have the 'status'
>> command to display local entities, so I'm actually leaning towards
>> removing '-l' completely... Your opinions?
>>
>
> To my mind, concept "no_commits" is a subset of concept "local_mode".
> Look at the command list:
>
> act, new : "no_commits" is the same as "local_mode"
> list:  "no_commits" is meaningless, "local_mode" is used.
>
> In commands "act","new" we could easily use "local_mode" instead of
> "no_commits", so may be we should better delete "no_commits"?

We are actually dealing with two separate issues here.

The first is to restrict DITrack to local operations ('local' in a sense 
'not requiring network access'). As of now, we only need a network 
access when committing.

The second one is to list issues based on their status (local/firm) in 
one single command ('ls').

To me, these two are completely different, that's why I suggest 
decoupling them. Furthermore, I tend to think that '-l' option for 'ls' 
should be reconsidered in a  more general context (and removed for now 
to avoid polluting 0.5 with not-thought-through features).

-- 
Vlad Skvortsov, vss at 73rus.com, http://vss.73rus.com