Julian Foad wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote:
>> Ohmigod... is that still in the code? I recall some strong objections
>> against a "svn version" command, and sort of remember our deciding to
>> rip it out again. What gives?
Here is one of the original motivations:
http://www.contactor.se/~dast/svn/archive-2003-11/0547.shtml
Another motivation was that "svn help" lists the available commands and
"version" is not one of them. A user pointed out that "It's pretty hard to
find the option '--version' via svn help."
A good solution to that second motivation would of course be to make "svn help"
list the "--version" option. That's a simple bug in my view.
Here is the most relevant recent thread:
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2004-07/1221.shtml
in which Max Bowsher wrote:
> Greg Hudson wrote:
>> 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.
>
>> * I think we need to keep our subcommand count small. If a user
>> wants to figure out how to do something, the list of subcommands
>> is one of the primary places to look. The longer this list, the
>> longer it will take users to find what they want.
>
> Although I agree that our subcommand set size must remain managable, I think
> this addition is worthwhile.
>
>> * 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.
And they might also expect it to show the current version (revision) of their
working copy, as "svnversion" does.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Apr 8 01:40:20 2005