[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: UI change proposal: logs vs. log-ls
From: |
Pau Aliagas |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: UI change proposal: logs vs. log-ls |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:52:16 +0200 (CEST) |
On 19 Sep 2003, Miles Bader wrote:
> Pau Aliagas <address@hidden> writes:
> > I'm using the one based on patch-168, released 2 days ago :)
> > Inside a project tree this is what I get:
> > $ tla logs
> > address@hidden/smsparser--dev--0.3
> > address@hidden/smsparser--dev-wbxml--0.3
> > address@hidden/smsparser--dev--0.3
> > address@hidden/smsparser--dev-encadenat--0.3
> > address@hidden/smsparser--dev-lib--0.3
> > address@hidden/smsparser--dev-url-sync--0.3
> > address@hidden/smsparser--dev-wbxml--0.3
> > address@hidden/smsparser--devel--0.2
> > address@hidden/smsparser--prod--0.2
> >
> > And that's what I meant.
>
> That's not a list of logs... I agree that it's a useful function, but
> the command name should reflect what it prints. :-) I'm suggesting to
> use either `tla log-versions' or `tla logs --versions' to print the
> above info.
I miss a way to see the patch logs inside the different log versions, that
is the same output than current log-ls specifying one of the versions.
So, If we move in this direction, we should consider to add this option
too.
In this case i'd rather have 2 commands:
-tla log-versions as the current tla logs
-tla log-revisions as the current logs + -l parametre to specify another
log version.
Does it make more sense to you?
Pau
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] UI change proposal: logs vs. log-ls, Pau Aliagas, 2003/09/19
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: UI change proposal: logs vs. log-ls, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/09/19