gnu-arch-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: baz, --full option, revision lists: What's the


From: Mikhael Goikhman
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: baz, --full option, revision lists: What's the best behavior?
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 22:09:15 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i

On 24 May 2005 21:03:39 +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> 
> Mikhael Goikhman <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > And it would be nice to have "missing --desc" shortcut for
> 
> I'll add a --desc option to all commands outputing revision lists.

In abrowse, it also does --kind, I think it is ok to include this info.
I would use different labels though ("import", "tag", "cset"), but the
current longer labels are fine with me too.

> > I think "missing" may default to short names, since it only works on one
> > version. Commands that may print more than one version are different.
> 
> Since some commands display more than one version, the best way to be
> consistant would be to have --full by default everywhere. Another
> issue with this short format is that many commands currently limited
> to one version, but could be extended to be able to follow history and
> display several version names.

There are several issues here. The tla design strongly suggests that
commands "revisions", "library-revisions", "missing" and "logs" work on
one version only. And I mostly like this, as well as the arch namespace,
something that bazaar[-ng] people want to remove.

The issue with the full form is it harms readability for interactive
users. I would seriously consider to use conditional defaults to improve
readability without introducing ambiguity, and have both --full and
--no-full options in one-version-plus commands. But I may accept any
client behaviour, as long as it does not remove functionality.

Regards,
Mikhael.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]