Re: svn ls question

pll@lanminds.com wrote:

>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?
>
>

because we have a limited number of single letter flags, and we have
generally been of the opinion that maintaining consistency among the
various subversion commands is more important than being consistent with
the namesakes of said commands. since we already have a prefectly good
'verbose' flag, we decided to use that in 'svn ls', rather than wasting
'-l', which might prove useful later.

-garrett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Nov 21 16:46:42 2002