[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 

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?


reply via email to

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