Better mechanism to choose the default editor (and avoid vi if possible)?
Arne Babenhauserheide
arne_bab at web.de
Mon Jun 8 16:18:10 UTC 2020
Marcus Harnisch <mh-mercurial at online.de> writes:
> On 08/06/2020 15.43, PIERRE AUGIER wrote:
>> I know at least one distribution targeting "non-power users"
>> (Ubuntu) which does not set $VISUAL or $EDITOR by default and does
>> not patch Mercurial.
>
> This is especially sad as they (perhaps Debian as well?) even
> configure ‘/usr/bin/editor’.
>
>> Do you know a distribution that does something like that?
>
> What I was saying is that the distributor is in charge of packaging a
> system-wide hgrc with ui.editor configured to something they ship or
> even recommend for CLI usage in comparable scenarios. That way users
> won't get confused why tool1 uses this CLI editor and tool2 another.
The distributor is responsible for that, yes. But users see it as a tool
not working, so we have to cover the case.
It’s like the case on the road: Even if a situation only happens because
another one ignored a traffic light, you still have to brake.
>> - using as the default editor the standard text editor of SUS/POSIX,
>> - or taking care of users that are destabilized by vi.
> - avoid error message saying “command not found”.
>> Finally, I didn't get what are the drawbacks of this setup (first
>> environment variables + config files, then nano is available,
>> finally vi as a fallback). Who is going to be disturbed by this?
>> How? If few experimented users land in nano, won't they be able to
>> set their preferred editor?
>
> That of course would work just as well. Have *two* fallbacks 'nano'
> and 'vi' (in that order). If that is acceptable, we'd have most people
> covered.
Sounds good to me.
Best wishes,
Arne
--
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken
More information about the Mercurial
mailing list