Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> writes:
> > Perhaps we could meet in the middle by doing this:
> >
> > 1. pre-determine the column size needed for status display, and
> > resize the columns according for each 'svn st' run.
> >
> > 2. add a left-justified table header row that machine parsers can
> > use to determine where table columns begin.
> >
> > Or (the alternative I prefer) -- just lose the author column
> > altogether, and win back 11 or 12 spaces for the path display.
>
> Yes, I like it :)
Which do you like? Resizable columns, or losing the author?
> It doesn't completely solve your problem: the revision fields have the
> same problem as the author field. That only becomes a problem at a
> million revisions and, while it is unlikely, it's not inconceivable
> for a repository to get that big. I don't care (much) if authors get
> truncated but I would be very unhappy if revisions got truncated. To
> guarantee support for tabular output we need larger revision fields,
> or resizeable columns.
So...it sounds like you want resizable columns, for REVISION,
COMMITTED-REV, and LAST-AUTHOR. I'm down with that. Certainly the
time sink for status is harvesting the info, not flying though the
hash calculating minimum column requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Feb 19 17:37:31 2003