I'm with Matt on this one: I use "cvs update" all the time to see what is
hanging around in my repository that I didn't commit. "cvs status" is
effectively useless because it is so verbose. Even worse, "cvs status" is
hard to apply a script to. A lot of times, I'll do something like:
$ cvs status | fgrep -B 2 Status:
(find the Status: lines, then show two lines before it to pick up the file
that the Status: applies to(!))
I see a good amount of conversation has occurred since this email, and Ben
has even written some nicely terse status code output (woo!), but I figured
that I'd at least pipe in with an extra vote/opinion.
Cheers,
-g
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:27:56PM +0200, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Matthew Braithwaite wrote:
>
> > > Or am I missing something?
> >
> > Only, perhaps, the fact that the existence of such a shell script
> > indicates a deficiency in CVS's user interface. :-)
>
> I agree. I didn't realize you argued mostly for a different output format for
> the status command. I too have been annoyed by the weird output 'cvs status'
> gives, and yes, my script is a work-around that solves those problems for me.
>
> Then again, I don't expect all tools I have to be perfectly fitted to my
> weird view of the world. I expect I'll still want to script or alias a few of
> the svn commands as well. Scripting is part of life. IMHO, it is still better
> to have a format that includes all the details that anyone would like to
> know, than have one that excludes details some people like/use. Of course
> command line switched could be used to change the output.
>
> This is however not a defense of silly output formats.
>
> --
> Daniel Stenberg - http://daniel.haxx.se - +46-705-44 31 77
> ech`echo xiun|tr nu oc|sed 'sx\([sx]\)\([xoi]\)xo un\2\1 is xg'`ol
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:13 2006