Philip Martin wrote:
>Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:
>
>
>
>>On Aug 11, 2005, at 8:07 AM, Alexander Thomas wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>$ svn ls -v
>>>> 1 sussman *sussman 3060 Apr 27 14:31 dutchwords
>>>>
>>>>
>
>I think the '*' is wrong because
>
> a) '*' is already used by 'svn status' but has a different meaning
>
> b) Position should be enough to distinguish the two usernames, just
> like the two revisions from 'svn status'
>
> c) It's not documented in the 'svn ls' help text
>
>
>
>>>> 1 sussman 238080 Apr 27 14:31 bluechairs.z5
>>>> 1 sussman 4829 Apr 27 14:31 bookreview.txt
>>>> 6 sussman 72192 Apr 27 14:33 driver.z5
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Looks good, One last question before you commit this patch.
>>>What happens if any lazy svn clients use 'svn ls -v' output (not using
>>>libsvn_client) directly and parse the result (Just a wild thought) ?.
>>>
>>>
>>That's why we document changes to output in our releasenotes. For
>>example, the output of 'svn status -u' changed in svn 1.2 when we
>>implemented locking.
>>
>>I'm now thinking that maybe that "is locked" column should be reduced
>>to just a single "L" character, like we do in 'svn status'. We'd
>>save more space that way...
>>
>>
>
>I think 'L' would be wrong, in 'svn status' it indicates an admin
>directory lock not a repository lock, and like '*' above I don't think
>we should overlaod it. 'K' is probably the closest match among the
>'svn status' characters.
>
+1. Right 'K' is probably the closest match.
-Alexander Thomas (AT)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 11 22:36:46 2005