On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 10:35:53PM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
> I can see a few options here:
>
> 1. Stick with what we have. Require people to go through
> contortions for the use case I mentioned.
>
> 2. Phillip Martin's suggestion, where "svn diff" takes either one or
> two arguments (instead of N arguments or two arguments).
>
> 3. Split "svn diff" into two commands, or require an explicit flag
> in one of the two use cases.
>
> I don't like (1) because I feel like some day there will be enough
> momentum to make developers want to correct the problem, and if we
> don't fix it now we'll end up stuck with a user interface which
> screams "historical." I don't like (2) because it's not very
> consistent with CVS. I don't like (3) very much because I can't think
> of a specific way to make it elegant, but it is probably the cleanest
> answer overall.
personally, (2) seems the most intuitive to me, but i haven't done a
ton of work with cvs. what makes this syntax inconsistent with cvs?
and even if it is, would this be nice enough to break that
compatability? personally, i'd lean towards yes, since being able to
say 'svn diff http://svn.collab.net/branches/my_cool_branch' and
having it diff my_cool_branch with my working copy would be really
nice...
-garrett
--
garrett rooney Remember, any design flaw you're
rooneg@electricjellyfish.net sufficiently snide about becomes
http://electricjellyfish.net/ a feature. -- Dan Sugalski
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue May 7 04:48:59 2002