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

[Matthieu Moy]

Mikhael Goikhman <address@hidden> writes:

> have both --full and --no-full options in one-version-plus commands.
> But I may accept any client behaviour, as long as it does not remove
> functionality.

This is what my branch[1] currently does.

,----
| $ baz logs | head -3
| base-0
| patch-1
| patch-2
| $ baz logs --full | head -3
| address@hidden/bazaar--revision-list--1.4--base-0
| address@hidden/bazaar--revision-list--1.4--patch-1
| address@hidden/bazaar--revision-list--1.4--patch-2
| $ baz logs --no-full | head -3
| base-0
| patch-1
| patch-2
| $ baz log | head -3
| address@hidden/bazaar--revision-list--1.4--patch-12
| address@hidden/bazaar--revision-list--1.4--patch-11
| address@hidden/bazaar--revision-list--1.4--patch-10
`----

--full and --no-full are allways present, cancel each other, but one
is actually useless.

More details on the wiki[2]. Everybody is welcome to try it and give
opinion before this gets merged in the mainline. By "opinion", I mean
either something constructive or a simple "it rocks"/"it sucks" ...

Actually, I realize the user interface still needs a big cleanup. Too
many commands are close from each other and could easily be grouped
(The abrowse/rbrowse couple is the best example, but is not the only
one). More details and comments welcome on the wiki page too.

Thanks,

-- 
Matthieu

[1] address@hidden/bazaar--revision-list--1.4
    http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/arch/public

[2] http://wiki.gnuarch.org/FrontEndFriendly