On Mon 2003-03-17 at 21:52:21 -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Yah, I added it only for compatibility (since Todd said he had it
> hardwired, I thought maybe he wasn't the only person).
>
> But the general feeling seems to be that it's ugly. And I have to
> agree: it's confusing syntactically with `pget', and semantically with
> `cat'. Not such a good idea, really. I'll revert.
>
> Todd, hope your feelings won't be hurt :-).
Since I am one of the persons who have "com" instead of "ci"
hardwired[1] and I really have difficulty to get used to ci[2], how
about the chance that a patch that allows to set aliases in
~/.svnconfig (or whatever it's called) accepted? Or is there any
better idea to allow a local flavor of the command set?[3]
TIA,
Benjamin.
[1] Maybe because I am not coming from any SCM background. I
effectively started with CVS and initially always confused "ci"
and "co" and so settled with "com". :-)
[2] Well, of course, that could be due to the fact that I have my
local copy patched to allow "svn com".
[3] Suggestions to use the shell for it should accomodate the fact
that not everyone is using bash, not everyone is using UNIX. And
an svncom script is plain ugly (the space after "svn" is also
hardwired ;-).
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Tue Mar 18 06:34:20 2003