[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla changes vs. baz status
From: |
Martin Pool |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla changes vs. baz status |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:59:36 +1000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i |
On 21 Jun 2005, Miles Bader <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 6/21/05, Aaron Bentley <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I guess the thing I like about the current output format for bzr is that
> > it's more accessible to new users, because they don't have to read a
> > legend to decipher it.
>
> Uh-oh...
>
> Hi! The following is a new file in this changeset!!!!
> Hope you like it :-) :--O :-/.
bzr status --format=clippy
I like it, and it would be a great application for the plugin interface. :)
More seriously, the current default is meant to be a tradeoff between
being machine-parseable and being reasonably understandable. I used
to like 'svn status', but I think Aaron's right that having to refer
to the legend so often shows something is wrong.
--
Martin
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Should "baz diff" provide a summary at the beginning? (Re: tla changes vs. baz status), (continued)
- Message not available
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla changes vs. baz status, Miles Bader, 2005/06/20
- Message not available
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla changes vs. baz status, Matthieu Moy, 2005/06/21
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla changes vs. baz status, Miles Bader, 2005/06/21
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla changes vs. baz status, Matthieu Moy, 2005/06/21
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla changes vs. baz status, Matthieu Moy, 2005/06/21
- Message not available
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla changes vs. baz status, Miles Bader, 2005/06/21
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla changes vs. baz status,
Martin Pool <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla changes vs. baz status, Robert Collins, 2005/06/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla changes vs. baz status, Miles Bader, 2005/06/23