Re: Making import syntax more consistant (Was Re: making repositories)

I like it! All your reasons make sense to me.

I've never been confused by the current import syntax, but I note that
I have to look it up every time. And I came up with it, so that says
something :-(.

> And, the change would provide one additional use case:
>
> (4) $ svn import url://repos/new-entry
> Create directory new-entry/ in repository and copy contents of current
> directory there. You end up with "url://repos/new-entry/working-copy/foo".
>
> which is impossible right now because you can't specify the third argument
> without the second.

Is this really true? Can't you just use `.' as the second argument?

> Much like removing the "-d" option from checkout, this change would probably
> confuse existing users. But in the end, it would make a lot more sense, and
> it is better to change it now before 1.0 makes a change impossible.

Sure, agreed.

> Are there technical reasons why the change would be impossible? Is there a
> reason why it wasn't made like this in the first place? CVS's import is so
> convoluted, I hope it burns in hell :), so I don't think CVS should be a
> factor in any decision.

I can't even remember the reasons for the current syntax now.

-K

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 14 21:44:51 2002