svn ls question

I'm curious:

        Why 'svn ls -v' and not 'svn ls -l'? Wouldn't it be more intuitive
        (at least to those who live in UNIX-land) to more closely mimick the
        real 'ls' command?
Thanks,

-- 
Seeya,
Paul
--
	It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
   but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.
	 If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org