Re: status code philosophy

Karl Fogel wrote:

> 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.

Mayhaps I see a soft spot in it ... :-)

> A single letter by default is
> less noisy, and (bonus) the way CVS behaves anyway.

A simple "svn rename" can cause a prop conflict.

How about a compromise: If nothing's changed in the props, print a space
instead of a '-'. This way users will mostly see one letter, not two, as
expected. If there's a prop change, it just magically shows up, as it
should.

> Yeah. Ben, this is all part of the tree delta conflict table that
> we've been working on (see whiteboard :-) ).

I see it. :-)

-- 
Brane �ibej
    home:   <brane_at_xbc.nu>             http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
    work:   <branko.cibej_at_hermes.si>   http://www.hermes-softlab.com/
     ACM:   <brane_at_acm.org>            http://www.acm.org/