Re: [Gnu-arch-users] baz, --full option, revision lists: What's the best behavior?

[Robert Collins]

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