Re: svn commit: r1157292 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: include/svn_client.h include/svn_wc.h libsvn_client/status.c libsvn_wc/status.c svn/status.c

On 08/13/2011 01:56 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:28:01PM -0000, neels_at_apache.org wrote:
>> Author: neels
>> Date: Fri Aug 12 23:28:00 2011
>> New Revision: 1157292
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1157292&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Show moved-to and moved-from information in 'svn status'.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Very good. The only nit I have is that IMO the > markers should
> appear in the same column for moved-away and moved-here.
>
> I don't think having them in the very first column is a good idea
> because these aren't standard status letters. Can we move the > marker
> for delete-halfs to the same colunm as the + in "A +"?

I very much agree with the point. Let me spell out the things I weighed...

D foo
> moved to bar
A + bar
> moved from foo

pro-first-column:

- 1.6's tree conflict infos' > chars are below the 'C' that marks the tree
conflict, so they are visually near the marker that they detail on. Thus the
'>' for the moved-to info should go below the 'D'. (my prime reason)

- when the moved-from and moved-to '>' characters are in different columns,
it is easy to distinguish them visually, at the very first glance. So if you
were looking for items that were moved away, look in the one column only,
and for items that were moved-here, run your proverbial finger down the
other column, no need to read words or letters to get that distinction.

- if a moved-to's '>' character were in the fourth column like moved-from,
that '>' would be visually floating in space, and would become useless as an
indicator:
D foo
> moved to bar

contra-first-column:

- the '>' looks like it's a new item, and we fail to find '>' in the
documentation of first-column status indicators.

- if moved-froms' and moved-tos' '>' are in the same column, it groups all
move related '>' in the same column. (this is the reverse argument that
negates the niceness of distinguishing -to and -from by column)

I went for "pro" because of that very first argument up there. But it's not
ideal, I agree.

How about one of these compromises:

(I)

D foo
> moved to bar
A + bar
> moved from foo

(II)

D foo
> moved to bar
A + bar
> moved from foo

Hmm, (II) kinda looks nice to me.

~Neels