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

[Pau Aliagas]

On 19 Sep 2003, Miles Bader wrote:

> 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.

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.

> > 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.

You're right, it's a subtle difference.

> 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).

Ok, what I was proposing as `patches' is in fact available as `revisions'.

Anyway, my proposal for categories is orthogonal to the three available 
commands branches, versions and revisions.

I'll reread you proposla for logs.

Pau