On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 05:12:12PM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> Joe Orton <joe@manyfish.co.uk> writes:
>
> > I don't understand why people want to overload the "status" command with
> > doing updatey things. "status" should show me the status of the WC - end
> > of story. If you want some kind of "will an update change my WC"
> > command, add a --dry-run to "update", like make has, or something.
>
> You don't think a "status report" on your working copy should tell you
> what's out of date? CVS's status report certainly does, and I don't
> think that's a misfeature.
Oh, really, maybe I am just off in my own little world here, but I very
very definitely don't want "svn status" to go over the network. I think
this comes from having used CVS over a high-latency connection, where
the only way to find out this "which bits I changed" was to use "cvs
update" and wait half an hour while it goes and does its thing.
joe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:41 2006