MQ usability

[Nicolas Dumazet]

2009/8/11 Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan at ochtman.nl>
>
> > If qseries had a mode of displaying which patches were applied and which
> > not, I'd agree that qnext, qprev, and qtop could go (and in fact qapplied,
> > too).
>
> People (Matt, for one) seem to like qapplied/qunapplied... Check
> qseries -v (or just qseries with color enabled).

Agreed.
I have colors enabled, and I don't use qnext, qprev, qtop, qapp or
qunapp, because with colors qseries is extremely useful.

Would this be a sign that qser needs to add a few symbols when colors
are not enabled?


2009/8/11 Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998 at anciens.enib.fr>:
> On Monday 10 August 2009 20:24:07 Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
>> If qseries had a mode of displaying which patches were applied and which
>> not, I'd agree that qnext, qprev, and qtop could go (and in fact qapplied,
>> too).
>
> For me, qseries highlights the applied patches, and dim the unaplied ones.
> It's thus easy, as a human, to know what's the current queue status is.
> But that it's not easily scriptable, though.
>
> A usefull output like the following would be both human- and machine-readable:
>
> + patch1        patch1 is applied
> ! patch2        patch2 is guarded, so not applied
>> patch3        patch2 is current patch
> - patch4        patch4 is not applied
> - patch5        patch5 is not applied (print guarded state?)

This kind of output is exactly what I was thinking of.

--
Nicolas Dumazet — NicDumZ [ nɪk.d̪ymz ]