Re: svn ls question

>>>>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, "pll" == pll@lanminds.com wrote:

  pll> Why 'svn ls -v' and not 'svn ls -l'?

>>>>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, "Rafael" == Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:

  Rafael> Consistency, I believe. -v is an option that many svn
  Rafael> subcommands understand ; -l is not

>>>>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, "Garrett" == Garrett Rooney wrote:

  Garrett> since we already have a prefectly good 'verbose' flag, we
  Garrett> decided to use that in 'svn ls', rather than wasting '-l',
  Garrett> which might prove useful later.

Fare enough, consistency is good :)

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity!

-- 
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