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

[Miles Bader]

Pau Aliagas <address@hidden> writes:
> When I type tla logs I expect to see the list of logs of the different 
> branches--versions, as currently happens.

You are apparently using a different version of tla then, because
that's not what `tla logs' does right now.  That's what I want to
change -- I _want_ `tla logs' to print a list of logs.

> 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.

That's wrong, because it's not what the current `log-ls' command does.
log-ls gives a list of _patch logs_ in the current project tree -- this
is not necessarily the same as the list of revisions.

By contrast, the `branches' and `versions' (and `revisions', which will
give you a list of patches) commands do not care what patch-logs you
have, they operate directly from the archive info (the only connection
with the project tree is to supply a default category if you don't
specify one).

-Miles
-- 
.Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.