On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 02:35:55PM -0500, email@example.com wrote:
> Branko =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=C8ibej?= <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > I think you got things upside down, Karl. What I think Greg and Joe
> > proposed (and I agree with) is that there should be two formats: A
> > simple one, with no revision numbers, that shows only local
Yes, that is my belief.
> > What I /haven't/ yet seen in this discussion is a good argument
> > /against/ havng a short format, except "consistency".
> The argument is that by having a short format, we will force the
> existence of another switch in order to get the long format -- because
> this switch cannot be the same as the switch that contacts the repos,
> nor should it be the same as the switch that causes all entries to be
> listed (after all, why should merely listing more entries also cause
> the format of each line to change? It's as if ls -a also implied -l).
"force" is the wrong word, Karl. We get to make *choices*, and those choices
do not have to provide for every darned conceivable cross product of
functionality. It is entirely reasonable for us to bundle up semantics into
a single switch, and it is good for the users to do so. They don't want
billions of switches and options -- that serves only to confuse. They want a
small set of functions which are reasily understood.
By your argument, you're saying there is a possible utility to "local mods
in long format". Forget it. You get local mods in short format, or all data
in long format. There is no need for all combinations.
I see that argument simply as inventing a reason for use in defending your
position. "If we have <that>, then we need <this> functionality, but that
makes everything too complicated, so let's throw out <that>." Bah.
> > "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." --Emerson
> > :-)
> Yes. But this is not a foolish consistency, it is a smart
In your opinion, yes. Many other opinions here want the short format.
Like Joe, I'll patch my client to give me the short format. And I'll post
the patch to the list so that others, like Joe and Branko and Mo, can apply
that patch and use it.
If out of some twisted sense of consistency, you don't want it applied to
the repository, then it will just live on as a patch. A commonly-applied
patch, I bet, but it will exist.
The short format gives you the information that you need and does not
clutter your brain with irrelevant stuff. Go look in the UI book that you
referred to. The typical usage is "what was modified". And the short format
answers that question succinctly.
At some point in the future, when people come along and start asking, "I
want just the local mods, but in that long format", then we can consider
another switch. In the mean time, I'd tell those people to:
$ svn status --verbose | grep -v '^_'
Or have some alias for it or something. But it isn't going to be a typical
usage, so it can be ignored. It means we don't need a switch to force long
format, and it means that a short format can easily work with the current
set of switches.
p.s. yes, the above note is somewhat (lots?) inflammatory; I'm finding the
argument for consistency to be awfully lacking. "ls" and "ls -l" are
different commands in my mind, so different output is expected. "svn stat"
and "svn stat -v" are also different. simple as that.
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:42 2006