Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> A couple of months ago, there was a short discussion about supporting
> the --targets option more fully. [1] Julian Foad wrote a proposal
> regarding how to better handle the --targets option, and I promptly
> disappeared from the discussion. :)
>
> [1] http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2006-04/0748.shtml
>
> I've started to do some investigation of my own, and I currently have an
> improved version of the patch I sent in the previous discussion. I do
> have the following questions:
>
> 1) Currently, if multiple --targets options are given, we silently
> ignores all but the last one. In such a case, should be process each
> one, or simply throw and error?
My vote: process them each/all, additively.
> 2) In order to have --targets be used to specify only repeatable
> targets, would it be favorable to prepend the list of targets it
> generates, rather than append them? In most of the commands I've looked
> at, the "special" command arguments are last, so prepending would
> maintain the correct meaning of arguments given by their order. Should
> such prepending be done for each command individually, or across the board?
You're making a false assumption here:
svn update foo bar --targets /path/to/more/targets
is *exactly* the same thing as:
svn update --targets /path/to/more/targets foo bar
Our option space is global, and option positioning doesn't matter. Options
are stripped first, leaving command arguments. As with most things, I'd say
consistency is best -- either always prepend, or always append, and make the
documentation say clearly which you do.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Wed May 31 21:18:19 2006