Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> > +A start on global options:
> > +
> > + -r repository Use REPOSITORY.
>
> Wouldn't this be an argument to the checkout command? Or are we planning to
> allow some of the commands when a working copy does not exist? e.g. why
> specify the repository for an "update" ?
Good question.
It's an issue of how many commands could work without a working copy
available. Some are:
import
checkout
rdiff
copy/branch/tag (questionable wisdom, maybe)
annotate
So that's more than three, anyway... makes me think it *maybe* should
be a global option (partially I'm swayed by the fact that this keeps
us consistent with CVS). But not sure. Thoughts?
> what the heck is rdiff?
Like cvs diff but you don't need a working copy.
> > + annotate | ann
> > + import | im | imp
>
> export?
Is it really necessary?
Well, it's easy to implement, so no harm in adding it if people want
it. Just let's *please* not require a -r or -D flag like CVS does. :-)
> > + history | hi | his
> > + log | lo
>
> how are history and log different?
Sorry, history was a typo; I've removed it. Just meant to say log.
> Will we have a "login" command? A URL can specify a user/password, but I'm
> sure many people will want prompts to keep the pwd off the cmd line.
>
> Speaking of: I think we can skip that whole "munge the pwd before storing in
> .cvspass" is bogus. Just store it in clear text and chmod the file properly.
> The cmd line should abort operation if the perms on that file are incorrect
> ("your .svnrc file has incorrect permissions, please set to 0600" or
> whatever).
>
> Along a similar line, there are going to be different ways to authenticate
> with the server. Sometimes, we may not even have a password :-) Other times,
> we need to somehow figure out where a client-side certificate is stored.
Yeah, this is a complex issue. I haven't really thought it through
carefully.
CVS's scrambling is questionable but not entirely crazy. I'd like to
know what other people think, but yeah, it's costs and benefits do
balance out pretty closely (and both are pretty minor).
> > +Some command-specific options are unique to that command, but others
> > +are common to several commands, for example:
> > +
> > + -v version Like "cvs cmd -r REV"
>
> urk. Is it possible to avoid duplicate letters between the global and local
> options? Dunno how much people confuse them, but it might be a nice start.
Erm, hmm. Well, yes, but only at the cost of losing a lot of the
optionspace.
CVS duplicates some options, and people don't seem to have a problem
in practice (not just myself -- I don't recall ever seeing someone get
confused about that in my bygone days as a CVS troubleshooter).
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:11 2006