Re: "svn ls" too complex?

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> We do have one sane alternative, which is to totally disallow options
> between "svn" and the subcommand name--"svn ls" becomes one rigid unit,
> almost as if we wanted to install separate "svnco", "svnupdate", and
> "svnls" commands but didn't want to pollute the filesystem. That scheme
> isn't terribly palatable, though; sometimes an option like -q "feels"
> global and people want to put it right after the "svn". We don't want
> to disallow that... but at the same time, we don't want -q to have a
> different meaning if people list it after the subcommand.

Why would it have a different meaning? It should have the same
meaning whether it appears before or after the subcommand.

I'm not exactly sure what problem you're proposing solving here...

-K

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 1 18:51:51 2002