Re: [mdz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx: Bug#285745: Completion for baz]

[Clint Adams <clint@xxxxxxx>]

> What is baz?  Some quick web searches didn't really turn anything up.

I believe that it is the binary name of the software described at
http://bazaar.canonical.com/ .  I've never used it.

> It sounds like it is an offshoot of Tom Lord's Arch.  The _larch
> completion was something I generated based on the help output from the
> Tom Lord's arch tool back in 2002.   It looks like _tla might be the
> better completion function for arch now.  It was added in 2004.  So it
> seems like _larch should be removed from the distribution. It's large,
> and doesn't seem like it would be used by folks. (correct me if I'm
> wrong)

larch was the original implementation of Arch, thusly named because
there's already an 'arch' binary present on most systems.  It was a
shell script and some C programs reimplementing FTP and whatnot.  I've
never used it.

> I'm not too familiar arch, and any offshoots. So if tla, larch, and 
> baz are all different flavors of arch, it would make sense to somehow
> combine then. If there are a bunch of flavors of this tool, it would
> be nice if someone could give a good pointer.

It looks as though baz is diverging from tla in terms of UI as well as
archive format.  ArX ( http://www.nongnu.org/arx/ ), which I have also
never used, is a fork of tla that I believe is completely incompatible
by this point.  I believe that there have been other Arch forks and
reimplementations, but I can't think of any of their names.

Canonical guys should feel free to correct me on any of this.