On Thu, 05 Jul 2007, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Daniel Rall <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > I'm really leaning towards adding more sub-commands to handle this
> > features. Anyone else have thoughts on this?
> Mrm, I'm really wary of it. Every user pays the price when our
> command set gets larger. If we have to add a subcommand for getting
> merge information, I think it should just be one subcommand, with
> options for the variations, as you originally proposed. Two full
> subcommands just for merge information? Just seems like too much...
Karl, thanks for the feedback.
The semantics and output of these commands vary pretty strongly. IMO,
it's more confusing to try and jam two different behaviors into a
single command, and pretend that different "modes" can handle it.
Assuming we did go this route, which "mode" is the default? (See
previous exchange with Giovanni.)
Received on Fri Jul 6 00:53:39 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored