On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 03:44:15PM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
> > Way too hard. ``svn'' + ``<subcommand>'' is the command.
> Perhaps we should reconsider whether we want a single command with
> subcommands in the first place. Why "svn commit" intead of
> "svncommit"? The only real advantage to the former is a cleanliness
> issue for aliases (e.g. we'd have to either sacrifice "svnci" as an
> alias for "svncommit", or put a symlink svnci -> svncommit; if we go
> the symlink route, our contribution to the number of entries in the
> binary directory becomes absurd).
> In CVS, of course, the main advantage of a single command was code
> sharing. But that's what libraries are for, and this project is
> definitely big on libraries already.
> Well, just a thought. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the
Urk. um.... "no way" :-)
I would rather not have a bazillion binaries (or hard/soft links to a single
binary) laying around my filesystem. Or needing to install Yet Another SVN
Command Binary when we come up with something else.
Having them in a single binary also makes it a tad easier to keep your
"help" in order. It is much easier for somebody to do "svn help" than to
struggle through man/info pages to figure out what the hell the name of the
binary is that they're looking for.
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:11 2006