Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Should "baz diff" provide a summary at the beginning? (Re: tla changes vs. baz status)

[Miles Bader]

On 6/16/05, Robert Collins <address@hidden> wrote:
> > It would also seem kind of absurd to have "changes" exist in baz but
> > behave in a dramatically different manner than in tla.
> 
> Of course, this is why changes should be removed from baz ;).

[That's also silly, as it's useful and provides painless compatibility.]

> What is weird about status ? (seriously, would like to fix it).

Well, remember I last used it in 1.3, so perhaps it's improved (though
according to Matthieu it still has the problem mentioned earlier on
this thread).

"changes" outputs a very regular list of one sort of information,
which is very often exactly what one wants to know.  It is simple and
consistent; I like this sort of command.

"status" presents a glom of info in multiple inconsistent formats (at
least it did when I last tried it); even the part of the output which
is in a "regular" format is pointlessly different than other commands.
 It feels messy and hacky (and the extra info apparently slows it down
as well).

Clean, pedantically regular, output formats and options are one thing
I think people really like about CVS.  tla sometimes gets this right
("changes"), and sometimes not ("show-changeset"); the stuff like I'm
complaining about above seems like a change in the wrong direction.

-Miles
-- 
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.