Re: "svn ls" too complex?

On Monday, July 29, 2002, at 12:36 PM, Greg Hudson wrote:
> Well, one of the things we don't like about CVS is that "cvs -l update"
> and "cvs update -l" do two different things, for example. We want
> options to have the same meaning no matter where they appear in the
> command.
>
> But if, say, the -l option takes an argument in the "svn co" command and
> doesn't take an argument in the "svn ls" command, then you can't be sure
> what
>
> svn -l ls co
>
> means.
>

Except:

man svn

and

svn man ls

should tell you that. :-)

This is how ClearCase works, and it makes a certain amount of sense. I
agree that the cvs situation is out of control, but I think it's
because it didn't have a consistent vision from the start. I'm not
saying you should mimic ClearCase, but I do think that at some point
you're going to regret not having subcommand-specific options, as the
list of subcommands grows, and the complexities of managing options gets
insane.

--
Nick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org