Matt, it may help to know that the svn status command is not *nearly*
as verbose as cvs's. In fact, we're trying to keep it to exactly one
line per file, and so far this is working out.
So it will look a lot like update, but without actually changing
Matthew Braithwaite <email@example.com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 10:50:12AM +0200, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> > Hm, I've never really concidered the first case being a separate function.
> > I've more seen it as "info we can just as well give you when we do the update
> > operation".
> Sure. I just want a way to get that information without modifying my
> working copy.
> > Well, if you take the mentioned 'cvs status' command, it already today tells
> > me the status of my working copy. It shows what files I've modified and which
> > files that have been modified in the repository since my last update.
> > In what way would this suggested other command differ?
> Purely in the output format. I almost never use `cvs status' for any
> reason other than to inspect sticky tags, because it is impossibly verbose.
> I may be alone in this; but the few observations I've been able to make of
> other cvs users suggest I'm not.
> So it's fair to say that what I want would be achived simply by making
> the default output format of `svn status' similar to what `cvs update'
> gives you. I attach a great deal of importance to that output format. A
> lot of people seem to like it, which is why I'm so gung-ho on making it
> possible to get that format without side-effects. My suggestion loses
> most of its weight if most CVS users use `cvs status' in the way that you
> do, but I'm not sure that they do.
> Machine-readability is the other reason the `cvs update' output format is
> important. pcl-cvs, for example, has two commands that are nearly
> identical in what they present to the user -- cvs-status and cvs-update
> -- but they have to parse entirely different output formats. It would
> be a convenience to the authors of such programs to have a standard output
> format that would be available with or without side-effects.
> > Personally, I usually have a little alias or script to do 'cvs status | grep
> > Status: | grep Locally Modified' or similar to get a brief list of files I've
> > modified...
> > Or am I missing something?
> Only, perhaps, the fact that the existence of such a shell script indicates a
> deficiency in CVS's user interface. :-)
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:13 2006