Re: [Patch] Issue #2291 - 'svn ls -v' should return locking information - V7

On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 15:20 -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> Ok, time to argue about bikeshed color. After applying a tweaked
> version of the patch and running 'svn ls -v', nearly every single
> filename wraps off the edge of my 80-column terminal. This is not good.
>
  Yes I agree is not good, not bad either. When more and more elements
comes-in, one day it will wraps off. Why don't we learn to live with it
now?. Not a great idea to remove elements to keep output with in 80-col.

> The patch does this:
>
> SVN_ERR (svn_cmdline_printf
> - (subpool, "%7ld %-8.8s %10s %12s %s%s\n",
> + (subpool, "%7ld %-12s %10s %12s %-12s %12s %s%s\n",
> dirent->created_rev,
> dirent->last_author ? dirent->last_author : " ? ",
> (dirent->kind == svn_node_file) ? sizestr : "",
> utf8_timestr,
> + lock ? lock->owner : "",
> + lock ? utf8_lock_timestr : "",
> utf8_entryname,
> (dirent->kind == svn_node_dir) ? "/" : ""));
>
>
> Why has the 'last author' been expanded to 12?

 No specific reason, You can change last_author and lock_author to 8.8.
>
> And I think I agree with lundblad here. There's just no room for the
> lock-date, it's way too wide. I think we need to add exactly *one*
> more column for the lock-author, and it should be marked in some way,
> so as to distinguish it from the 'last author' field. Perhaps
> something like:
>
> [lundblad]
>
> or
>
> *lundblad*
>
> ?

I think it pretty clear from 'svn help' the order of occurrence, So
why we need to distinguish between last_author and lock_author in
output?.

-- 
########################
#####****######********#
####*~ *~*#####***~~***#
###*~*# *~*######*~~*###
##*~* ** *~*#####*~~*###
#***######***####****###
######################## 
 Alexander Thomas (AT)
 alexander@collab.net
 Collabnet Inc.
  
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org