Mo DeJong <supermo@bayarea.net> writes:
> The output has nothing to do with it. I don't think the user is going to
> get confused as to which subcommand they ran when looking at the
> output. The problem I have with the --update flag to the status command
> is that is mixes the update concept into the status command. A user is
> going to have to learn and remember why status --update is different
> than update and remember it from that point on. The flag should indicate
> that the svn client will contact the repository and display status information
> for "interesting" files. It should not be named after the implementation,
> namely running update --dry-run behind the scenes.
The option's long name is "--show-updates", not "--update".
It's called that because it shows what is out-of-date, i.e., what
needs updating. It is named after its functionality, not its
implementation. It happens that the implementation is indeed to do a
dry run update under the hood, but this was implemented after the name
was chosen.
One advantage is that a good short option (-u) was available, which is
not true for the alternatives (--repository and --repos) you suggested
in an earlier mail. It does need a single letter alias, as it is
quite frequently used.
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:43 2006