On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:33:50AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Stenberg [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Sent: 14 September 2001 09:15
> > On 13 Sep 2001, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > > > (1) what did I change?
> > > >
> > > > (2) what is out of date?
> > >
> > > If we split 1 and 2 into two different subcommands, what would they be
> > > called? Could their output still be similar?
> > .... and it would still be neat to have _one_ command that shows
> > a combined output, as discussed previously. It doesn't necessarily take
> > away the need for two different ones of course, but could be an option
> > or something.
> I'd like to see 'status' and 'lstatus' (local status) or 'status -l'
> status would be 1 and 2 combined, lstatus would be just 1.
> I think output could be similar.
+1 for status -l/--local. Then if we just gave status, and the network wasn't
available, we could print a warning, saying "Network not available, showing
local modifications only."
> My $0.02,
Kevin Pilch-Bisson http://www.pilch-bisson.net
"Historically speaking, the presences of wheels in Unix
has never precluded their reinvention." - Larry Wall
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:41 2006
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored