On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 19:18, Max Bowsher wrote:
> > As far as I know, this idea came up in some smoky back room and was
> > implemented without much discussion. I am close to -1 on it because:
>
> I am +1 on this, if and only if, before 1.2.0, "svn version URL" also shows
> the server version.
>
> CVS has this feature and it is sometimes helpful.
We could do this with svn --version --foo=URL for some value of foo. I
didn't see any consideration of that and other options, just an
immediate leap from "we want this functionality" to "new subcommand".
But I'm willing to clarify my vote to -0 based on the new (to me)
arguments that CVS has the subcommand and that it's hard to find the
--version functionality in the help output when it's not a subcommand.
> > * Subcommands are typically seen as verbs, not as nouns. So people
> > might get derailed thinking that there is an svn subcommand to
> > "version" a file or directory.
>
> Typically, but not exclusively (e.g. "help" not "show-help", "resolved", not
> "i-have-resolved").
"help" can be seen as a verb. "resolved" was a sticky case, but there's
at least no confusion possible for it. (And we changed it from
"resolve" because the verb form of resolve was confusing.)
> To "version" (verb) an object doesn't have any meaning to me.
If you follow the users list, people talk about "versioning" a file to
mean "put it under version control and manage it". So people could
confuse "svn version" with "svn add" or "svn import". As Ben pointed
out, the result of such confusion would be harmless, but it would still
be a stumbling point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jul 29 19:00:22 2004