On 02 Nov 2005 08:17:28 -0500, C. Michael Pilato <email@example.com> wrote:
> > To break the deadlock between the opposing motivations of 'keep svn
> > simple', and 'add useful utilities', I'd like to propose that we
> > introduce the notion of a basic and an additional command
> > set. Practically, all this means is splitting commands between `svn
> > --help` and `svn --help-additional`, and dividing our documentation of
> > commands in the same way.
> > I think this will give us a way to add less-used, but still very
> > useful functionality to svn, whilst sidestepping the elevated learning
> > curve which has dissuaded us from doing so in the past.
> > Thoughts?
> +1 on the concept.
> Is there a well-defined rule that will keep us from endlessly debating
> every subcommand's status from here on out (like, "the subcommand
> could be written as a composition of other existing subcommands plus
> some shell scripting")? Do any of the current subcommands meet your
> criteria for demotion from a standard command to a "useful utility"?
svn import and svn export are both very handy, but you can get away
without them if you have a good shell. Perhaps we should count export
and import as "additional commands"?
David James -- http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~james
Received on Wed Nov 2 20:25:58 2005