Re: [Monotone-devel] status --brief

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:59:47PM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> There's no "-n update" or "--pretend update" or similar, that I've
> noticed. Perhaps this is another form of:
>  $ monotone diff -q -r <my baserev> -r <mythical head selector>

Interesting point!  This honestly never occurred to me, I just happen
to never particularly care about what I would get if I updated, since
I always use update to mean "make sure I'm at the latest thing so I
can start work", and don't care particularly what's being merged
in...

If we do the "magic selectors" thing that another thread has been
throwing around, the above is spelled
  $ monotone diff -rB: -rU:

> If we imagine these two queries renamed as something like:
>  $ monotone list uncomitted (or local_changes?)
>  $ monotone list updates (or branch_changes, head_changes, ..?)

Hmm, not sure; "list" seems to be kind of over-used and confusing
already...

> Then perhaps there's a case to be made for "monotone status" to show
> me a condensed view of both sets: for each file, if it has local or
> repository changes or both pending. There's probably something under
> "automate inventory" that provides this info already..

ATM inventory doesn't show anything about updates.

> Because branches are sticky, but revisions and tags and other checkout
> selectors are not, "out of date with respect to the branch" is also an
> important part of the status of a working directory.  Ideally,
> "status" would consolidate and summarise (rather than concatenate)
> information I can get from more specific commands.

Interesting point.  I'm a little dubious about scaring users by
sticking in a "working copy is out of date" line in, because it will
encourage people to think like that means they _should_ update, which
is the sort of thinking we'd like to train people out of...

There's no reason there shouldn't be an easy way to query it, though.

> > This may still be a bit much distracting info for the very common
> > task of wanting a quick summary of "wait, what happened here
> > again?"... could have an even briefer version that just has the last
> > part, or another command ("changes" or something, maybe?) that just
> > outputs the last part.
> 
> yeah, i think that's "list uncomitted".  Sometimes I just want to know
> "will I lose anything if I blow away this old checkout?" (in which
> case I should also "list unknown", hmm..)

Yeah, and even "list ignored", possibly...

-- Nathaniel

-- 
.i dei jitfa fanmo xatra