[(I've copied this to [EMAIL PROTECTED], because there were questions about what users actually wanted)]
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:23 -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > On Nov 2, 2005, at 7:45 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > > However, before coming up with a zillion suggestions about how to > > make the syntax nicer, please do consider the idea that we did put > > a lot of thought into the diff syntax, and that covering all the > > uses and edge cases and is not easy. > > Any system that requires me to specify the same things over and over > again, is broken. cvs _never_ did. > > cvs diff -rtag1 file.c > cvs update -jtag-1 -jtag-2 file1.c file2.c > cvs update -rnew-branch . > > the list goes on and on. You sacrificed usability for the masses for > an edge case that we don't care about. The good news, is the > interface is trivial to fix. Find a solution, and just fix it. I > want a user interface that uses no more words than the above, for the > above operations, and no more funny characters than the above > either. I don't mind if instead of -rtag1, I have to use -rtags/ > tags1 and -rbranches/apple/trunk, that sort of expansion is fine. > > In cvs land, I typed -d:whatever, about once a year, I want to type > svn: about once a year as well. If someone wants to do something > funny, let them type a long command line, that's ok. > > Until then, this _is_ a regression. No argument here from me. > Oh, and how does one do: > > -rb1 -D '20 days ago' > > in svn? It felt like svn threw away all the fine GNU data handling > stuff. Instead of throwing it away, reuse it. cvs has it, GNU date > has it. > This, on the other hand was a very specific decision made to get rid of the date parsing CVS did (it was used at one point) because it returns *wrong* answers in a surprising number of cases. If you've got a specific date syntax you'd like, and a good reason it should be added, I doubt anybody would oppose adding it to svn. --Dan
