Re: status code philosophy

Branko =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=C8ibej?= <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
> Why not just always show both codes? I don't see one extra (meaningful)
> character in the output as being problematic.

JimB's net connection is down, so I'll give the answer he gave
privately earlier:

For most users, properties are probably not very important. They're
concerned with the text of the file. And that's the way CVS works
too, so they're already accustomed to the single letter output.

When the local user starts actually doing something with properties,
then of course status lines will show that. But clean (non-merging)
property updates are probably better done silently.

FWIW, I think Jim's reasoning is solid. A single letter by default is
less noisy, and (bonus) the way CVS behaves anyway.

> > QUERY 2: Will we ever see anything other than a '-' in the first
> > field of a directory's status line?
>
> Absolutely. Additions and removals, modify the contents of the
> directory, and conflicts can arise. They should be marked.

Yep!

> > Specifically, a conflict over what the directories contents ("text") should be?
>
> Two additions of the same file should conflict; likewise removal vs.
> modification. That could be all, I guess (two different renames are
> property conflicts on the renamed node, not the containing directory).

Yeah. Ben, this is all part of the tree delta conflict table that
we've been working on (see whiteboard :-) ).
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:15 2006