[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

RE: general questions

From: John Maher <JohnM_at_rotair.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:57:22 -0400

> But exactly for those wrappers there is no point in
> trying to do *everything* the CLI can do in the GUI as well

I disagree. The point is to make the job easier. Having to switch
around would prove the point that it is not helping much. I agree to
streamline what needs to be done. But I also would want to be able to
pass any text to svn that I want. That gives me the best of both
worlds. I get the simplicity of the gui and also get to enter anything
I want, even " status | awk '/I / { print $2 } | xargs rm" by just
typing it in and passing it to svn. Not only does that handle things
that would be unfeasible it keeps things consistent. Perhaps you need
to be a system programmer to understand.

A script is just a subset of a full fledged program. In other words, a
program can do all a script can do and more. I bet other users on this
list are getting a good laugh at this discussion. I know I am!!

Your turn.


-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas Krey [mailto:a.krey_at_gmx.de]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:36 PM
To: John Maher
Cc: Les Mikesell; David Chapman; Mark Phippard;
Subject: Re: general questions

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:11:08 +0000, John Maher wrote:
> I don't understand this statement at all. I'm talking about a simple
> wrapper.

Ok, I got that wrong. But exactly for those wrappers there is no point
trying to do *everything* the CLI can do in the GUI as well. Streamline
the most important things. I've done such a thingie for myself for cvs;
you could just run update (where in svn you'd do status), click on
filenames to see the diff, and commit. Nothing more needes; the only
point was not to cut&pase the filenames.

Interestingly I do the same with git on the command line because those
tools have gotten better and more streamlined there.

> And it would be very easy in incorporate *everything*. Even
> command that have not been added yet.

You can't especially not shell invocations, as that would viod the
of the GUI.

> Again, if necessary it can be, very easy. However that is not the
> of the wrapper.

Yes, it is. Imagine a GUI for 'svn status'. Now imagine how you'd
do the equivalent of 'svn status | awk '/I / { print $2 } | xargs rm'
with that GUI, or even with the help of that GUI for the svn part.

Putting that in a script and name it svn-clean is two lines.
Putting that in a GUI (and esp. your svn status wrapper) is..how much?

> in designing a program. They are not
> as limited as you believe them to be.

Programs aren't. GUIs are, exactly because of their primary goal.
They want to avoid the plugs and bolts at the outside, and thus they
aren't pluggable and boltable. (And yes, they do make many things
easier. And other things impossible.) Even Word has a CLI; even
though it's gruesome and called word basic.


"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
Received on 2012-09-11 20:59:46 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.