On Mar 27, 2005, at 6:53 AM, Molle Bestefich wrote:
>>> I don't think this should get an svn subcommand. We need to keep our
>>> command set small in order to keep our learning curve shallow, and
>>> having a lot of neat utilities stashed inside the svn command isn't
>>> consistent with that goal.
>>> Maybe we could shoehorn this function into "svn info", but I don't
>>> if that can be done cleanly.
>>> (I realize that shipping a lot of separate commands in order to get
>>> neat utilities isn't great either. Probably we shouldn't have
>>> svnversion farther than the contrib directory.)
>> Oh no, it's definitely more useful than that.
>> If we were designing it now, I think we would unquestionably make it
>> a svn
>> subcommand, but I don't see any point in changing it now.
> Obviously not, as you are a hard-knock Subversion developer ;-).
> Having commands that are logically acquainted in one place makes sense
> for the newbies who gets the learning-curve benefits of coherent
> tools, not for the guy who's developed it and knows how it works.
> 'svnversion' could be included in 1.1.4 with a "Warning: this tools is
> deprecated. Use 'svn rev' instead" warning printed to stderr, and
> completely removed for 1.2.0..
I would love to have 'svn revsion', particularly if it took a URL to a
repo, I would like to use something like it in our build process. Our
builds need to do multiple checkouts or exports from the same
repository. I would prefer that they all come from the same revision.
So an easy way to get *just* the head revision would be very useful. I
develop and build on Windows so the shell and scripting is crippled - I
will not install 3rd party shells and add yet another configuration
step to an already complicated setup for our developers. So 'svn
revision' would be a great way to easily get the HEAD revision.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Sun Mar 27 23:38:40 2005