[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] UI change proposal: logs vs. log-ls

From: Pau Aliagas
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] UI change proposal: logs vs. log-ls
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 08:57:01 +0200 (CEST)

On 19 Sep 2003, Miles Bader wrote:

> I find these two command very confusing since the names basically seem
> like variants of the same thing, but their behavior is rather different.
> My proposal is to either:
>   (1) Change `logs' -> `log-versions' (since the current `logs' command
>       really returns a list of versions, not logs), and change `log-ls'
>       to `logs' (since this command really does return a list of logs).

>   (2) Only have one command `logs' which basically does what `log-ls'
>       does now, and add a `--versions' option that makes it return a
>       list of versions like the current `logs' command does.

When I type tla logs I expect to see the list of logs of the different 
branches--versions, as currently happens.

OTOH, log-ls doesn't suggest me anything, I'd rather have "tla patches", 
much more natural ans easy to remember. So, what about a tla patches?

We have two commands that operate in a project tree:
-tla branches
-tla versions

So tla patches makes sense to me.

tla categories is a bit inconsistent as it returns the available
categories in the archive, instead of the tree. Maybe now hat we have 
abrowse we could recycle it and use it inside a tree to see the 
categories, analogously to branches, versions and the proposed patches.

What do you think?

reply via email to

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