On Dec 18, 2007 10:16 AM, Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@red-bean.com> wrote:
> I think what's really bothering fitz (and me) is that we've made a
> tradeoff here. We used to have a really 'tight' commandline UI. We
> decided from day one that all options would be global, and that their
> position in the commandline wouldn't matter. It also meant that each
> subcommand had a very succinct list of options that it understood, and
> rejected all others. Both of these design decisions were aimed at
> making the CLI more usable: no more CVS-like confusions ("does the -d
> come before or after the URI?"), and no more confusion about whether
> an option was appropriate for a subcommand or not. 'svn help
> subcommand' was clear and consise.
>
> Now it feels like we'd traded some of this tightness for the sake of
> making it easier for developers to write testing scripts, putting
> developers before users. The new design feels like a premature
> optimization ("someday all commands might make use of these
> switches..."), and users can't run 'svn help subcommand' to get a
> sense of say, whether a command actually has the potential to talk to
> a repository or not.
What he said.
-Fitz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Dec 18 16:28:33 2007