On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 02:32:10PM -0500, cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
> Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 11:29:46AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 02:13:17PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > > It just seems intuitive (as I've tried the command several times still
> > > > expecting it to work :) that if I say "recursive" and don't pass an arg,
> > > > I mean ".". Obviously, since recursive is not the default, and implicit
> > > > dot-target for that case wouldn't make any sense, nor would it work in a
> > > > logical manner.
> > > >
> > > > Just a thought. I'm not really hung up on it.
> > >
> > > FWIW, I agree with Ben.
> > >
> > > If I say --recursive, I implicitly want '.'. -- justin
> >
> > i do seem to get caught doing 'svn revert --recursive' and forgetting
> > the . an awful lot, so i'm going to have to agree, the dot should be
> > implicit in the --recursive case.
>
> Oh, I always get caught by it, too.
>
> But <up-arrow><space><period><enter> just isn't that hard to deal
> with. :-)
>
I think any argument that "svn revert" shouldn't have an implicit "."
because, presumably, the user accidentally hit return before specifying
the file name would apply to "svn revert --recursive", too.
What if, instead, we had a novice mode that asked you "Are you sure?",
and an expert mode that didn't?
--ben
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jul 10 22:25:23 2002