[Cuis] Warnings on image save (was Re: Why not just kill changesets?)

[Juan Vuletich]

This is in the last GitHub commit. Please check and comment on it.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich

Germán Arduino wrote:
> Yes, I agree too.
>
> 2013/1/3 H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com 
> <mailto:hannes.hirzel at gmail.com>>
>
>     For me this makes sense
>
>     --Hannes
>
>     On 1/3/13, Juan Vuletich <juan at jvuletich.org
>     <mailto:juan at jvuletich.org>> wrote:
>     > Hi Casey,
>     >
>     > (inline and abridged on subject)
>     >
>     > Casey Ransberger wrote:
>     >> I think the problem with the warnings had to do with my not
>     >> understanding some design constraints clearly, and this clarifies;
>     >> also, sorry if I offended, that was definitely not my intent.
>     >> Sometimes I come off as ranty when I don't mean to: mea culpa.
>     >
>     > Hey, don't worry. Maybe I overreacted a bit, or I made it look
>     like that.
>     >
>     >> ...
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         - No more annoying dialogs about unsaved changes in
>     core when
>     >>         there aren't actually any. Everything is a package, so
>     there
>     >>         isn't a distinction. We don't need a special method to
>     >>         determine what's part of core and what isn't WRT the
>     warnings
>     >>         about unsaved changed. Elegance, symmetry, less blivet to
>     >>         worry about.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     This is unfair. I answered (I believe twice) about your
>     concerns
>     >>     with those warnings, but didn't get a response from you!
>     Please,
>     >>     let's discuss those warnings in a separate thread. If we
>     have some
>     >>     use case(s) and some discussion, I believe we'll clarify any
>     >>     doubts and come up with something that works well for
>     everybody.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> I thought I replied to that, but it's in my drafts. Oops. Also, I'm
>     >> sorry about the way I phrased that. The short version of what I
>     said
>     >> was "I get it now, and yes, the change you suggested does make
>     sense."
>     >> If I'd sent that, I think this statement might have made a bit more
>     >> sense. I brought it up here because what I was suggesting seemed to
>     >> obviate that work.
>     >>
>     >
>     > This is what I'm coding right now:
>     >
>     > On quit without save:
>     > - Warn about unsaved packages (if you don't save them, you might
>     need to
>     > go to the .changes file to recover your work)
>     > - Warn about unsaved changes to core (if you don't save them,
>     you might
>     > need to go to the .changes file to recover your work)
>     >
>     > On quit and save:
>     > - Don't warn about unsaved packages. You can save them anytime.
>     > - Do warn about unsaved changes to core (the change set will be
>     removed,
>     > so you'll need to gather them if you want to publish them or update
>     > other images).
>     >
>     > Does this make sense?
>     >
>     > Cheers,
>     > Juan Vuletich
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Cuis mailing list
>     > Cuis at jvuletich.org <mailto:Cuis at jvuletich.org>
>     > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
>     >
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Cuis mailing list
>     Cuis at jvuletich.org <mailto:Cuis at jvuletich.org>
>     http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cuis mailing list
> Cuis at jvuletich.org
> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
>