Re: svn ls question

pll@lanminds.com wrote:
>
> 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?

Consistency, I believe. -v is an option that many svn subcommands
understand ; -l is not. And note also that 'ls' is only a shorter alias
for the "real" command 'list'.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Nov 21 16:47:27 2002