Command line group: as far as I know, you all have commit access now
(and if you don't, tell me). I haven't meant to discourage anyone
from committing, apologies if I've had that effect. When I said the
design would require discussion on this list, I didn't mean to imply
everything had to be discussed before any commits were made.
So please take that humble beginning in subversion/client/README and
run with it -- let's see some commits. You never have to be shy about
changing what's there, because it's all under version control. :-) And
commits are part of list discussion, since the diffs get sent here
anyway. It's a lot easier, even for people on the dev list, to review
a file under version contol than to go digging through email
The existing client code will do for a while, but it will need to be
replaced within a few weeks. So I think we shouldn't spend more than
a week on the spec (after all, mistakes can be changed). When one of
you feels squirrelly, just go ahead and check in some code. The only
request I have is that you ensure the client/tests/ stuff continues to
work -- i.e., if you change the user interface of the command line
client, please change the testing script to match.
Eschew timidity, :-),
"B. W. Fitzpatrick" <email@example.com> writes:
> > Matthew Braithwaite <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > Speaking of historical reasons, the change from -d to -r seems a little bit
> > > gratuitous to me. Does -d count as ``suffocatingly'' similar to CVS? :-)
> > -d is a historical leftover even in CVS, from the days when the
> > repository was always a directory on the same machine as the working
> > copy.
> > I don't think we should try to preserve CVS's hysterical raisins --
> > that's needlessly perpetuating confusion
> That should, IMO, be the charter of the command line client
> group. Many of the letters for CVS's command line options make
> absolutely no sense. Let's hear it for `Feature Compatible' with CVS,
> not `Just as buggy and weird as' CVS.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:11 2006