On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 17:26 -0500, John A Meinel wrote: > Matthieu Moy wrote: > > Hi, > > > > baz missing removed the "-f, --full" option, and made it the default > > behavior. While this can be a good thing (I always used -f > > anyway ...), this makes it inconsistant with other commands displaying > > revision lists (baz revisions, baz logs, ...). > > > > Shouldn't we apply the same change (remove -f and make it the default) > > to other bazaar commands? (I can do this myself, but I want opinions > > on this) > > > > Thanks, > > > > Well, for 'logs' I like having just the patch name, since the rest is > just clutter. I already know what fully qualified version it is, so I > don't need it cluttering up the output. I would say the same thing about > revisions. > > I'm not sure why for baz missing, but I wonder if it isn't because it is > more likely that you will be asking for revisions that are not in your > current tree. You rarely want to know what is missing from your branch, > more likely you want to know what someone else has done. > > And possible baz is thinking that 'baz missing' (with no options) should > compare against a parent, or something like that, and they are preparing > for the change.
We did it for baz missing so that when folk do the fairly natural thing : baz missing [branch] | baz cat-archive-log, it works. revisions is much less likely to be piped wholesale, ditto for logs. That said, it would be nicer to be consistent IMO. Rob
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
