RE: Resolution of 'svn diff' change?

> From: cmpilato@collab.net [mailto:cmpilato@collab.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 3:37 PM

[...]
> So, to maintain the iterative diff functionality, I suggest we do one
> of a few things:
>
> 1. revert 'svn diff' back to its interative,
> base-versus-working-file state,

*mumble mumble*
 
> 2. then, either:
>
> a. add a new 'svn compare' subcommand to handle the 2-target
> comparitive diff case, or

The joy of another subcommand?
 
> b. give 'svn merge' the extra diff responsibilities, either by:
>
> i. adding --dry-run flag, or
>
> ii. by making the absence of an explicity third merge argument
> mean "just gimme the diff to stdout".

-1. Telling people to run 'merge --dry-run' when what they want is
a diff (which they do not intend to merge at any point in time), is
counterintuitive.
 
> where (2a) is the only truly sensible decision in my mind.

Oof...

Note that the iterative functionality can be easily done using a wrapper.
Whereas the new functionality cannot.

Can someone from the pro-iterative camp speak up and tell us if a wrapper
would be that bad? And next, how large is the pro-iterative camp?

Sander

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon May 19 15:56:41 2003