=?UTF-8?B?QnJhbmtvIMSMaWJlag==?= <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
> Remember so looong ago when Greg and I proposed that we just have "svn
> fetch" instead of "svn up", "svn co" and "svn switch"? Since after
> all, those commands are just variations on a common theme. We were
> overruled then, IIRC on the grounds that the different commands had
> some mnemonic value and were therefor useful.
>
> Let's decide once and for all whether we want to be complete or
> concise. If the first, "svn import" should stay. If the second, then
> very few commands remain:
>
> svn cp (copy, import, export, move)
> svn fetch (checkout, update, switch)
> svn commit -- or is that just another instance of "svn cp"?
> svn patch (diff, merge, patch)
>
> and, of course, the working-copy stuff, propsets and other little
> details.
I for one am entirely uninterested at this stage of the game in
having to tackle both the tasks of replacing CVS and re-educating the
entire body of CVS current users.
In my opinion, the correct thing to do is to be concise behind the
APIs and complete in front of them. If that means that we grow a new
library between svn_client and svn_wc/ra/delta/etc. that maps complete
API calls to concise ones, so be it. At least that way, individual
client programs could use either of the two available interfaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 22 23:14:42 2002